The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
A True Story of Justice in Modern America
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I mentioned this shameful story five years ago, but it’s worth repeating:

You can see the entire thread here.

 
Hide 146 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Have they investigated the pot smoking gang bangers? Does the DNA of any of them match the DNA found under the woman’s nail?

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    @Dave Pinsen

    Ehrlich:

    https://twitter.com/clintehrlich/status/1467927303359385600?s=21

  2. Richard Jewell.

    • Thanks: JimDandy
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Jewell was lucky. There have been several movies and documentaries (one by Peter Jackson, another starring Reese Witherspoon and Colin Firth) about the West Memphis Three, a trio of poor white teenagers in Louisiana who were railroaded by a corrupt judge and prosecutor (both Democrats) for the murder of three young boys they almost certainly did not commit. They spent 18 years in prison for it, and at least one of the young men was on death row.

    There are a lot of assholes in power out there. Some are happy to railroad anyone just to get a conviction to help their career. Some just hate other people for any random reason, or for no reason at all.

    People like to think that God or fate or the universe have decreed that whenever there is a horrific crime that the perpetrator will eventually be brought to justice. The heavens have no such rule, and sometimes the perpetrator is never found.

    Replies: @Polistra, @68W58, @Boo Alcindor, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @James Braxton, @Catdog, @Catdog

  3. Anon[194] • Disclaimer says:

    Along those lines, Alice Sebold, a famous author who made a fortune off her memoir Lucky and other books, just revealed she accused an innocent man of rape and put him in jail for 16 years. Her story was going to be made into a movie, but the producer noticed there were inconsistencies in her story and hired a private detective to investigate what really happened.

    The whole thing makes me wonder whether she simply had sex one day and then decided to make up a rape story to create some personal drama, then later decided to create more drama by accusing an innocent man. Sebold’s family background is the sort that tends to produce people with borderline personality disorder. Her mother was emotionally unstable.

    • Replies: @Paul Rise
    @Anon

    The Sebold story I read made me think the accused guy probably did rape her, and police/prosecutor bungled the case and also convinced her that she had accused an innocent person.

    , @Chris Mallory
    @Anon


    Along those lines, Alice Sebold, a famous author who made a fortune off her memoir Lucky and other books, just revealed she accused an innocent man of rape and put him in jail for 16 years.
     
    Hair evidence did more to put they guy into jail than Sebold's testimony. His conviction was overturned on technical grounds. He very well might be guilty.
    , @Old Prude
    @Anon

    I know of a woman who claims she was raped 32 times. She either encountered a regiment of the Red Army, or attended NBA spring training.

    Or is making it up. As in, "I got stoned out of my mind 32 times and woke up next to someone..."

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    , @Anonymous
    @Anon

    I don't know the details of the case, but there's a good chance she had a medical examination done, after the rape. Which usually gives some strong circumstantial evidence of force. She reported this thing right away, not waiting. Also, the right away report is much more consistent with an actual rape than the fame-seeking remembering it later.

    The issue appears to be who she sent to prison. And some issues with her testimony and lineup ID. Not, with saying she wasn't raped at all.

  4. tldr: all cops are bastards.

    The neo-left, for all their many, many flaws, got this one right a long time ago. Most contards will never learn.

    • Replies: @Adept
    @AndrewR

    You might be correct, but the real villain of that story wasn't a cop -- he was an activist lawyer who (successfully) filed a civil suit and used it as a springboard into a criminal prosecution. There was malfeasance and laziness all around, but, as so often is the case, the primary malefactor was a lawyer.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @AndrewR, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Not Raul

    , @Art Deco
    @AndrewR

    The person promoting his prosecution wasn't a police officer, it was a local trial lawyer / politician.

    , @JR Ewing
    @AndrewR

    I totally agree, cops can be bad apples and do a lot of mischief on their own, but they’re ultimately just worker bees. The real problem is prosecutors, especially the unelected “staff” ones who do all the work. They are usually the lesser students in law school and they constantly go around with chips on their shoulder and see every case as their own Moby Dick to be conquered.

    The elected guy at the top sets the tone and condones the bullshit, but the assistant DA’s are usually the ones who are causing damage.

    , @RonaldReagansLoveChildWithMadonna2
    @AndrewR

    I think it fair to change your opinion of the cops, if in fact the cops are becoming like every other beauracratic entity, inevitably becoming corrupt, increasingly geared toward furthering its own existence, excusing or covering up its own malfeasance etc.

    Because i'm totally on the Fuck The Police bandwagon, and i was raised by law-abiding, law-respecting Eisenhower republicans.

    , @interesting
    @AndrewR

    You've never meet any cops.

    My X-wife was a school teacher and teachers marry cops and firemen. so every holiday party we attended was full of cops and firemen.

    The cops were cool down to earth folks but the firemen, who spent almost all day every day winding hoses and training (their words sport, not mine, so don't get all triggered) were pretentious assholes who thought their shit didn't stink. If they weren't winding hoses or training they were working out all day.

    Most calls for the firemen were traffic accidents.....no bullet dodging or perp chasing in their daily routine.

    And they used to have a benefit softball game to raise money for charity (do you do that?) and they called it "guns & hoses"

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  5. Hollywood, among many disservices, has led people astray on profiling. Profiling is a lot like dogs that sniff out x. Maybe they can, but probably they are there to give cops probable cause.

    I believe what profilers do is called abductive reasoning. They start with a conclusion, then work backward. That ain’t how proper reasoning is done, folks!

    I read the thread. Judges need to rein prosecutors in on lying about law to juries. First, the prosecutors’ job is not to get a conviction of the guy sitting in the defendant’s chair. Their job is to get convictions of the people who actually did the thing if the said thing was illegal.

    On this particular case, how is it ok for the state to re-try someone? Isn’t that a second trial for the same crime? Trials until you get a conviction are obviously unconstitutional, right? When did re-trials become a thing in America?

    When the DA says, ”you can presume guilt because he was in the parking lot” or “you lose the right to self-defense when you bring a gun” juries might take that in instead of the thirty pages of jury instructions. I’m sure judges know it’s hyperbole, but jurors are not legal professionals.

    Conservatives really need to lose their blond respect for cops and the justice system. The long march through the institutions is over. The courts are not on your side.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Rob

    Many American oligarchs are implicated in an underage sex ring. Those who have a memory that lasts more than a year might remember that the guy who managed said sex ring just happened to "commit suicide" before he could confess the details of who the clients and traffickers were.

    Now his associate is on trial away from the public eye. They are going over the top to conceal it from the public. This bitch who pimped underage girls: not only is she getting the judicial legal rights due to all Americans, and visibly denied to Kyle Rittenhouse, but she's getting active media silence and almost complete privacy on top of that.

    Yes. Americans-especially right-wingers, but really anybody who gives a damn about this country and rescuing it from its elites, bipartisan political, economic, media, military, and bureaucratic-really do need to accept that we live in a different world now, and that if we're gonna win, we got to play by different rules.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Pericles

    , @Art Deco
    @Rob

    Conservatives really need to lose their blond respect for cops and the justice system.

    Prosecutors and judges are not cops. The police are not at fault when prosecutors engage in shenanigans at trial.

    Replies: @Danindc, @AndrewR, @Not Raul

    , @Steven Thompson
    @Rob

    On the one point, "how is it okay for the state to retry someone," if the previous trial ended in an acquittal, and the trial is in the same jurisdiction, retrial is impossible. Note that (while irrelevant in this case), it is possible for a single act to violate both state and federal law, and for both state and federal prosecutors to prosecute it: it is irrelevant to one jurisdiction how the other's trial comes out.

    Anyway, if the trial ends in a mistrial (neither conviction nor acquittal), the prosecution can try again for a conviction. Or if the trial ends in a conviction, which is overturned -- the subject hasn't been acquitted. I was a juror in such a trial (it ended in another mistrial -- the prosecution, instead of relying on the felony murder law -- the suspect was clearly involved in the crime that led to his partner killing the victim -- tried to show that the suspect had actually given the killer the murder weapon, relying on a witness who might as well have had "liar" tattooed on his forehead).

    Trials can continue until they end in either and acquittal or conviction; prosecutors often take a mistrial as a reason not to try again, but they are under no legal obligation to do so.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    , @Jack D
    @Rob


    On this particular case, how is it ok for the state to re-try someone? Isn’t that a second trial for the same crime? Trials until you get a conviction are obviously unconstitutional, right? When did re-trials become a thing in America?
     
    Since forever. The 5th Amendment (and by extension state law) does not permit the state to retry you if you have been ACQUITTED of a crime. If the jury is hung, then you have not been acquitted and can be tried again (and again) for as many times as necessary until a jury is able to reach a verdict either way. As a practical matter (and sometimes as a matter of law) there is a limit to how many times they will retry you until they give up but this is not for Constitutional reasons.

    Replies: @JR Ewing

    , @G. Poulin
    @Rob

    Yeah, only a blond would think that they are.

    , @Paul Mendez
    @Rob


    I believe what profilers do is called abductive reasoning. They start with a conclusion, then work backward. That ain’t how proper reasoning is done, folks
     
    Most criminal profilers are, whether they know it or not, are giving “cold readings.” I used to do tarot card readings. There are a variety of tricks you use to take advantage of the many cognitive weaknesses of the human mind. It’s the verbal version of slight-of-hand.

    What Safarik did was a “hot reading.” That’s when the reader does preliminary research on the sitter, then uses this information in the reading as if he was divining it just now. There’s no “art” to it, just lying.

    Cold readings are harmless parlor games. Hot readings are the tool of frauds and conmen.

    Replies: @magilla

  6. As this demonstrates, always be careful what you say to police. (If you’re innocent why give them a whole slew of information about you to plod through in error trying to tie you in?) Information you think exonerates you might actually be construed deliberately or honestly as circumstantial information to convict you.

    • Thanks: ic1000
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @Altai

    I have mixed feelings about this. Most cops are just trying to solve crimes, not railroad anyone. If I'm innocent (which of course I am) and can thoroughly back up my alibi I'm going to do the police a favor and give them any information I have. But never speculate, never answer more than is needed, and if they keep questioning you then get yourself a lawyer. Clamming up and refusing to answer legitimate questions just wastes their time and resources investigating an innocent person.

    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then clearance rates would plummet. That's not really a world we want to live in. If you want to live in that world you can find it in much of the ghetto.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Almost Missouri, @Harry Baldwin, @Jack D, @Johann Ricke, @Jack D, @Ben tillman

  7. @JohnnyWalker123
    Richard Jewell.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    Jewell was lucky. There have been several movies and documentaries (one by Peter Jackson, another starring Reese Witherspoon and Colin Firth) about the West Memphis Three, a trio of poor white teenagers in Louisiana who were railroaded by a corrupt judge and prosecutor (both Democrats) for the murder of three young boys they almost certainly did not commit. They spent 18 years in prison for it, and at least one of the young men was on death row.

    There are a lot of assholes in power out there. Some are happy to railroad anyone just to get a conviction to help their career. Some just hate other people for any random reason, or for no reason at all.

    People like to think that God or fate or the universe have decreed that whenever there is a horrific crime that the perpetrator will eventually be brought to justice. The heavens have no such rule, and sometimes the perpetrator is never found.

    • Replies: @Polistra
    @Wilkey

    This happens a lot more than people want to admit. If you are poor and white, there's little to no chance you'll find the media or any part of the so-called criminal-justice system on your side. This story reminded me first of Mike Nifong and then of myself, when I was in a very bad place one day long ago. Though completely innocent, I only escaped from a horrible fate by the grace of God, and little else. I had simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time, and an hysterical woman decided to railroad me. She nearly succeeded.

    Replies: @thenon

    , @68W58
    @Wilkey

    The worst thing about the West Memphis Three is that they weren’t even absolved. Instead they took a deal for time served so as not to risk a new trial because that allowed the state to not have to pay them any restitution for their time behind bars. I heard one of them interviewed and he said they didn’t want to risk another trial since one of them was on death row and they didn’t want to risk sending him back.

    Here’s the story of another three men falsely convicted of murder who spent a quarter of a century in prison: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/3-army-vets-set-free-after-25-years-in-prison-for-crime-they-say-they-didnt-commit/

    Replies: @68W58

    , @Boo Alcindor
    @Wilkey

    Arkansas.

    , @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Wilkey


    There are a lot of assholes in power out there. Some are happy to railroad anyone just to get a conviction to help their career. Some just hate other people for any random reason, or for no reason at all.

    People like to think that God or fate or the universe have decreed that whenever there is a horrific crime that the perpetrator will eventually be brought to justice. The heavens have no such rule, and sometimes the perpetrator is never found.
     
    This is a good point and one that bears examination. Public pressure to solve a notorious crime can be a corrupting influence in the criminal justice system. Public pressure to convict the accused can also be a corrupting influence in the criminal justice system. In both cases you really do need people of character in both the roles of Prosecutor and Judge in order to best ensure a just result.

    What I never understood about people who were enthusiastic about convicting those suspected or accused regardless of the evidence is that a false positive (wrongful conviction) would likely mean that the actual perpetrator of a crime gets to walk free. The desire to punish the perpetrator of a notorious crime should always be preceded by assiduous scrutiny of evidence to ensure that you have the right guy.

    Replies: @Hangnail Hans

    , @James Braxton
    @Wilkey

    Where do you get the "almost certainly" stuff?

    I think this case is an example of Hollywood propaganda distorting reality.

    The Misskelley kid confessed and implicated the others twice. Once with his lawyer in the room.

    Championing this case was just an opportunity for celebrities to virtue signal and earn points by saying "rednecks bad."

    Replies: @Getaclue

    , @Catdog
    @Wilkey

    I'm not an expert on this case but I've looked into it in the past and it seemed to me like the three teens were guilty and Jackson's arguments for their innocence were weak and flailing.

    , @Catdog
    @Wilkey

    But I've just refreshed my memory of the case on Wikipedia and see that some of the parents of the victims believe that they were innocent. I grant that that alone gives me "reasonable doubt".

  8. @Altai
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

    As this demonstrates, always be careful what you say to police. (If you're innocent why give them a whole slew of information about you to plod through in error trying to tie you in?) Information you think exonerates you might actually be construed deliberately or honestly as circumstantial information to convict you.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    I have mixed feelings about this. Most cops are just trying to solve crimes, not railroad anyone. If I’m innocent (which of course I am) and can thoroughly back up my alibi I’m going to do the police a favor and give them any information I have. But never speculate, never answer more than is needed, and if they keep questioning you then get yourself a lawyer. Clamming up and refusing to answer legitimate questions just wastes their time and resources investigating an innocent person.

    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then clearance rates would plummet. That’s not really a world we want to live in. If you want to live in that world you can find it in much of the ghetto.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @Wilkey


    Most cops are just trying to solve crimes...
     
    Too many cops these days are looking to merely close cases.

    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then clearance rates would plummet.
     
    You kind of make my point.

    One is well advised in these days to say as little as possible to police when one is in absence of counsel.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Wilkey


    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then clearance rates would plummet. That’s not really a world we want to live in.
     
    A more practical concern with the don't-talk-to-police line is that, if you are a police investigator and you interview ten persons of interest, and nine of them give you more or less coherent interviews while the tenth one gives you nothing but "Ima getta lawyer", which person will the police investigator immediately suspect is the guilty party?

    Replies: @Chris Mallory, @Jack D

    , @Harry Baldwin
    @Wilkey

    Most cops are just trying to solve crimes, not railroad anyone.

    I wouldn't apply that assumption to the FBI, though. Not lately.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    , @Jack D
    @Wilkey


    Most cops are just trying to solve crimes,
     
    Maybe on TV. In real life, most cops are just trying to bide their time until they can collect their pensions. If they can clear their case backlog by pinning every open felony in their book with a (somewhat) similar MO on you they will be glad to do so if you will cooperate and confess.
    , @Johann Ricke
    @Wilkey


    Most cops are just trying to solve crimes, not railroad anyone.
     
    While that is likely true, they are limited by native cognitive ability and the fact that they aren't typically on scene at the time of the incident. Many develop bad habits such as snap judgments on the suspects they interrogate, to the point that they'll try to make a case where none exists. If you happen to be on the wrong end of such an interview, you will, at minimum, spend huge amounts of money on mounting a legal defense. At worst, a guilty verdict will change the course of your life in ways you never thought possible.
    , @Jack D
    @Wilkey


    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then clearance rates would plummet.
     
    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then false conviction rates would plummet even more.

    As a society, we have an interest in high clearance rates, but as an individual, I have an even greater interest in not providing the cops with the tools to ruin my life. If the State wants to make a case against me, then let them but I ain't helping them. The latter trumps the former.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    , @Ben tillman
    @Wilkey

    Yeah, it worked great for George Zimmerman — at least till a political prosecution was started. Talked to the cops for hours; they found his story convincing, and that was it until the media stirred up a Lynch mob.

    Replies: @Hangnail Hans, @Art Deco

  9. anonymous[167] • Disclaimer says:

    Now the FBI comes off looking like garbage even in its normal work of solving crimes.

    To help build a case against Ray, Foltz sought help from the FBI.

    The Bureau sent one of its top criminal profilers — Mark Safarik.

    He had literally co-authored the “Bible” of criminal profiling.

    In movies like Silence of the Lambs, they make profiling look like a legitimate science.

    Unfortunately, in real life, it’s mostly bullsh**.

    Safarik made up a “profile of the killer” that conveniently matched every detail about Ray.

    • Replies: @Old Prude
    @anonymous

    FBI. There's some sh*t. Tying this into the don't talk to the cops: Definitely don't talk to the FBI. Somehow they have managed to make "lying to the FBI" a crime, but when the FBI lies to you and to me and to the entire nation, they get a pass.

    Use Bill Clinton as your role model: "I don't recall" "My memory is --- unclear". And so on.

    , @Skyler the Weird
    @anonymous

    Remember when the profilers in the D.C. beltway sniper case unequivocally said the suspect had to be a White Guy in a White Van?

    Replies: @JMcG

  10. @AndrewR
    tldr: all cops are bastards.

    The neo-left, for all their many, many flaws, got this one right a long time ago. Most contards will never learn.

    Replies: @Adept, @Art Deco, @JR Ewing, @RonaldReagansLoveChildWithMadonna2, @interesting

    You might be correct, but the real villain of that story wasn’t a cop — he was an activist lawyer who (successfully) filed a civil suit and used it as a springboard into a criminal prosecution. There was malfeasance and laziness all around, but, as so often is the case, the primary malefactor was a lawyer.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Adept


    You might be correct, but the real villain of that story wasn’t a cop — he was an activist lawyer who (successfully) filed a civil suit and used it as a springboard into a criminal prosecution. There was malfeasance and laziness all around, but, as so often is the case, the primary malefactor was a lawyer.

     

    And Ray Jennings is free and Clint Ehrlich a God-fearing man because of Dateline


    https://www.theday.com/storyimage/NL/20181012/ENT09/181019806/EP/1/1/EP-181019806.jpg

     

    …and the grace of God.

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix

    , @AndrewR
    @Adept

    Prosecutors are cops dude

    , @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Adept


    You might be correct, but the real villain of that story wasn’t a cop — he was an activist lawyer who (successfully) filed a civil suit and used it as a springboard into a criminal prosecution. There was malfeasance and laziness all around, but, as so often is the case, the primary malefactor was a lawyer.
     
    Yeah, I got that too.

    The plaintiff's lawyer who represented the Decedent's family had a pecuniary interest in having the security guard be the killer rather than the usual suspects. If he could establish that the killer was the security guard, then his plaintiff's case has a big pocket to target in the form of the insured security firm. If one of the gang-bangers was shown to be the killer, most plaintiffs' attorneys wouldn't touch the case because there would likely be no insurance coverage and the gang-banger is essentially "judgment proof (lawyer talk for someome who has no real assets or income)."
    , @Not Raul
    @Adept


    You might be correct, but the real villain of that story wasn’t a cop — he was an activist lawyer who (successfully) filed a civil suit and used it as a springboard into a criminal prosecution. There was malfeasance and laziness all around, but, as so often is the case, the primary malefactor was a lawyer.
     
    The cop lied under oath. If he had told the truth (the uniform was still dirty), the defendant would have been acquitted. The cop is a villain.

    The prosecutor just did what prosecutors do every day. There was a community still outraged by the unsolved murder of a young woman, the prosecutor was given a lead, so he tried to get a conviction. It’s not pretty, it might be unjust; but that’s how the system works. If you don’t like it, change the system. There are lots of innocent people behind bars. The public wants their prosecutors to be productive.

  11. @Wilkey
    @Altai

    I have mixed feelings about this. Most cops are just trying to solve crimes, not railroad anyone. If I'm innocent (which of course I am) and can thoroughly back up my alibi I'm going to do the police a favor and give them any information I have. But never speculate, never answer more than is needed, and if they keep questioning you then get yourself a lawyer. Clamming up and refusing to answer legitimate questions just wastes their time and resources investigating an innocent person.

    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then clearance rates would plummet. That's not really a world we want to live in. If you want to live in that world you can find it in much of the ghetto.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Almost Missouri, @Harry Baldwin, @Jack D, @Johann Ricke, @Jack D, @Ben tillman

    Most cops are just trying to solve crimes…

    Too many cops these days are looking to merely close cases.

    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then clearance rates would plummet.

    You kind of make my point.

    One is well advised in these days to say as little as possible to police when one is in absence of counsel.

    • Agree: Hangnail Hans
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @The Alarmist


    One is well advised in these days to say as little as possible to police when one is in absence of counsel.
     
    Maybe. There is a non-zero but still very small chance that the police will try to frame an innocent person. It’s all well and good to say here in a symposium setting “Don’t talk to the cops,” but in real life if, say, a neighbor is burgled, raped, kidnapped, or murdered, I’m going to want to do what I can to help solve the crime and catch the criminal, without hamstringing the cops by making them wait around for my lawyer. If the interview drags on too long, or they ask me to show up to an interrogation room then, yeah, I’m shutting up until my lawyer arrives.

    I don’t know about you, but personally I like living in a high trust society where citizens work with the cops to help make the community safer.

    Replies: @Sean, @Jack D, @Colin Wright, @Blodgie

  12. Anonymous[369] • Disclaimer says:
    @Adept
    @AndrewR

    You might be correct, but the real villain of that story wasn't a cop -- he was an activist lawyer who (successfully) filed a civil suit and used it as a springboard into a criminal prosecution. There was malfeasance and laziness all around, but, as so often is the case, the primary malefactor was a lawyer.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @AndrewR, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Not Raul

    You might be correct, but the real villain of that story wasn’t a cop — he was an activist lawyer who (successfully) filed a civil suit and used it as a springboard into a criminal prosecution. There was malfeasance and laziness all around, but, as so often is the case, the primary malefactor was a lawyer.

    And Ray Jennings is free and Clint Ehrlich a God-fearing man because of Dateline

    …and the grace of God.

    • Replies: @Nicholas Stix
    @Anonymous

    Keith Morrison is one of the few TV journalists that the Stix family loves. And if the truth prove to be otherwise, I'd just as soon not know.

  13. The interesting thing about that Twitter recap is the commission established was probably created to help people of color who had been railroaded. People like that degenerate trial lawyer mayor who created this case in the first place were trying to help out the Soroses of the world and it got an innocent man free. Good.

  14. Seems to me that the race of a person killing someone for a flashy car would be black 99% of the time. The stupid cops and lawyers should have disqualified him based on that alone.

  15. Everyone going on about the dirty cops: sure there are many, and they’ll get worse as it’s clear which way the wind blows. But the lawyers are the driving force here. The attorney mayor should be put in jail an equal amount of time for his malevolence. Lawyers who edit testimony, lawyers who misstate the law, lawyers who push to prosecute a man after two mistrials. The worst cops out there, the FBI, are highly law-degreed and show it with the way they handle procedures.

  16. There are eight million stories in the Naked City; this has been one of them.

    But do you think there might be another way of looking at this story? A way where you’re not invested in a black vs white, good guys versus bad guys way of thinking you’re usually warning us against?

    What if Sgt. Ray Jennings got what he deserved?

    As ZedMan re-quoted Sobran, or Sam Francis, on his podcast recently: The problem with conservatives is that they are so sure that their ideas are so powerful that they just sit back and rely on the force of their ideas sneaking up on the left and slitting their throats.

    It reminds me of Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter repeating every so often enough to reinforce themselves and their followers that “America is the greatest nation on earth.”

    Are they aware of Switzerland?

    Do they think all nations have a Detroit or Philadelphia or any of the many shitholes of USA?

    Faced with a clearly imploding society how do Americans still project outward their moral judgements on the world?

    The clearly unjust story of this post would not be found in the top 50 Western nations of the world yet is an every day occurrence in the USA. Americans have become so inured to injustice that their core nation focused solely on one court case adjudicating the self-defense of a White man and nationally let out a sigh of relief when justice was upheld. In fact, many celebrated the mundane fact of justice given the fact of the colour of the young man’s skin.

    American hero, Sgt. Ray Jennings, was no hero. He took a job enforcing the will of multinational corporations upon weaker nations unable to maintain national sovereignty in the face of the mightiest military force in world history. He had a job killing as an enforcer of wealthy people’s rules. He’s no better or less than any standover man or mafia thug enforcing the will of the family.

    Sgt. Ray Jennings was a slither of metal of a cog in the ongoing human-meat-grinder that is the USA.

    It’s important we remember that.

    I wish that we could have an HBD blog that could focus on these matters instead of a stock standard schlock neo-con version of CNN fur seal clapping for fish our supposed “National Heroes”. Next we’ll have a Blackhawk landing mid post to celebrate the Invasion of Grenada with the handing over of the game ball for Steve to ceremoniously kick the game off.

    • Replies: @Cloudswrest
    @Pat Hannagan

    You're implying he's the character "Barr" from Jack Reacher.

  17. @Wilkey
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Jewell was lucky. There have been several movies and documentaries (one by Peter Jackson, another starring Reese Witherspoon and Colin Firth) about the West Memphis Three, a trio of poor white teenagers in Louisiana who were railroaded by a corrupt judge and prosecutor (both Democrats) for the murder of three young boys they almost certainly did not commit. They spent 18 years in prison for it, and at least one of the young men was on death row.

    There are a lot of assholes in power out there. Some are happy to railroad anyone just to get a conviction to help their career. Some just hate other people for any random reason, or for no reason at all.

    People like to think that God or fate or the universe have decreed that whenever there is a horrific crime that the perpetrator will eventually be brought to justice. The heavens have no such rule, and sometimes the perpetrator is never found.

    Replies: @Polistra, @68W58, @Boo Alcindor, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @James Braxton, @Catdog, @Catdog

    This happens a lot more than people want to admit. If you are poor and white, there’s little to no chance you’ll find the media or any part of the so-called criminal-justice system on your side. This story reminded me first of Mike Nifong and then of myself, when I was in a very bad place one day long ago. Though completely innocent, I only escaped from a horrible fate by the grace of God, and little else. I had simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time, and an hysterical woman decided to railroad me. She nearly succeeded.

    • Replies: @thenon
    @Polistra

    I saw a video about the events related to the "happy face killer ". One of the things that struck me was that the guy who saved the innocent man was a journalist, and that the cop who did the case had a feeling that something was wrong. but was unable to pursue it (trapped in the system with no time or support to pursue?) and his boss the head cop fought the exoneration and was pissed off at everyone but himself even at the end. People get mental blinders put up when pursuing a goal, and it takes an outside person to see this blindness. One of the things we lose track of on this blog while rightfully excoriating bad Journalists and Lawyers is that we need them for defense of the innocent. How to change the system without destroying it is the question. marxist and right-wing extremism is the most dangerous threat to our way of life.

    Replies: @Adept

  18. This reminds me of the murder of Kent Heitholt. Black guy obviously did it (Michael Boyd) but they have white guy (Charles Erickson) still in prison. Ryan Ferguson made this case famous.

    Boyd has never been investigated. Total travesty of justice. Even worse than this Jennings case.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    @Danindc

    Similar to the Amada Knox case. The black guy almost certainly did it.

    Replies: @Danindc, @Joe Joe, @Truth

  19. As a supporter of police it pains me to say this, but they aren’t your friends when it comes down to it. Have a lawyer present if they ask you to come downtown. Or answer a couple of basic questions and ask them if you are free to go. Then walk away. If arrested, for sure don’t give any statements without a lawyer present.

  20. @Wilkey
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Jewell was lucky. There have been several movies and documentaries (one by Peter Jackson, another starring Reese Witherspoon and Colin Firth) about the West Memphis Three, a trio of poor white teenagers in Louisiana who were railroaded by a corrupt judge and prosecutor (both Democrats) for the murder of three young boys they almost certainly did not commit. They spent 18 years in prison for it, and at least one of the young men was on death row.

    There are a lot of assholes in power out there. Some are happy to railroad anyone just to get a conviction to help their career. Some just hate other people for any random reason, or for no reason at all.

    People like to think that God or fate or the universe have decreed that whenever there is a horrific crime that the perpetrator will eventually be brought to justice. The heavens have no such rule, and sometimes the perpetrator is never found.

    Replies: @Polistra, @68W58, @Boo Alcindor, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @James Braxton, @Catdog, @Catdog

    The worst thing about the West Memphis Three is that they weren’t even absolved. Instead they took a deal for time served so as not to risk a new trial because that allowed the state to not have to pay them any restitution for their time behind bars. I heard one of them interviewed and he said they didn’t want to risk another trial since one of them was on death row and they didn’t want to risk sending him back.

    Here’s the story of another three men falsely convicted of murder who spent a quarter of a century in prison: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/3-army-vets-set-free-after-25-years-in-prison-for-crime-they-say-they-didnt-commit/

    • Replies: @68W58
    @68W58

    Here’s another one about a man later released for a murder he didn’t commit. I just watched a documentary about this one last night and they used some pretty shady tactics to send him to prison.
    https://www.gastongazette.com/story/news/crime/2019/07/06/mark-carver-out-of-prison-but-not-quite-free/4753699007/

  21. @Anon
    Along those lines, Alice Sebold, a famous author who made a fortune off her memoir Lucky and other books, just revealed she accused an innocent man of rape and put him in jail for 16 years. Her story was going to be made into a movie, but the producer noticed there were inconsistencies in her story and hired a private detective to investigate what really happened.

    The whole thing makes me wonder whether she simply had sex one day and then decided to make up a rape story to create some personal drama, then later decided to create more drama by accusing an innocent man. Sebold's family background is the sort that tends to produce people with borderline personality disorder. Her mother was emotionally unstable.

    Replies: @Paul Rise, @Chris Mallory, @Old Prude, @Anonymous

    The Sebold story I read made me think the accused guy probably did rape her, and police/prosecutor bungled the case and also convinced her that she had accused an innocent person.

  22. @68W58
    @Wilkey

    The worst thing about the West Memphis Three is that they weren’t even absolved. Instead they took a deal for time served so as not to risk a new trial because that allowed the state to not have to pay them any restitution for their time behind bars. I heard one of them interviewed and he said they didn’t want to risk another trial since one of them was on death row and they didn’t want to risk sending him back.

    Here’s the story of another three men falsely convicted of murder who spent a quarter of a century in prison: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/3-army-vets-set-free-after-25-years-in-prison-for-crime-they-say-they-didnt-commit/

    Replies: @68W58

    Here’s another one about a man later released for a murder he didn’t commit. I just watched a documentary about this one last night and they used some pretty shady tactics to send him to prison.
    https://www.gastongazette.com/story/news/crime/2019/07/06/mark-carver-out-of-prison-but-not-quite-free/4753699007/

  23. Another factor here is that the case-management paradigm of one’s OWN lawyer is likely to be: Complex, expensive, drawn-out, and hostile.

  24. The worst cops out there, the FBI, are highly law-degreed and show it with the way they handle procedures.

    It should not be forgotten that the FBI has, as an institutional policy, a ban on recording interviews with either witnesses or suspects. The only record of these interviews is a form 302 that the agent writes up after the fact. While every 3 man Podunk police department records it’s interviews, as a matter of course, the most lavishly funded law enforcement organization in the world finds it too burdensome. Such a policy has only one plausible reason; to maintain the Bureau’s ability to be ‘creative’ – i.e. lie like a rug- in the 302. The FBI’s reputation , although severely damaged over the last few years, remains miles and miles ahead of where it should be. Say what you will about J. Edgar, but the man was a P.R. genius.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    @kaganovitch

    Consider — it is a crime to say something untrue to a federal agent of any kind.

    Even if you honestly believe you are telling the truth.

    You could tell a park ranger you walked by such and such a waterfall when really you saw a different waterfall and bingo! You just committed a federal crime! Unlikely to be prosecuted unless a crime were committed near one of the waterfalls and they want to railroad you.

    A famous example:

    Martha Stewart was scheduled for a friendly chat with federal agents. She went over with her attorney what to say to avoid prosecution and also to only say honest stuff.

    Martha Stewart was convicted of lying to the SEC.

    Had she kept her mouth shut she still might’ve been convicted. She was convicted of obstruction of justice. But by talking to the SEC she had another charge.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Joe Stalin, @Jack D

  25. @Wilkey
    @Altai

    I have mixed feelings about this. Most cops are just trying to solve crimes, not railroad anyone. If I'm innocent (which of course I am) and can thoroughly back up my alibi I'm going to do the police a favor and give them any information I have. But never speculate, never answer more than is needed, and if they keep questioning you then get yourself a lawyer. Clamming up and refusing to answer legitimate questions just wastes their time and resources investigating an innocent person.

    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then clearance rates would plummet. That's not really a world we want to live in. If you want to live in that world you can find it in much of the ghetto.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Almost Missouri, @Harry Baldwin, @Jack D, @Johann Ricke, @Jack D, @Ben tillman

    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then clearance rates would plummet. That’s not really a world we want to live in.

    A more practical concern with the don’t-talk-to-police line is that, if you are a police investigator and you interview ten persons of interest, and nine of them give you more or less coherent interviews while the tenth one gives you nothing but “Ima getta lawyer”, which person will the police investigator immediately suspect is the guilty party?

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    @Almost Missouri

    You are not going to talk yourself out of criminal charges. Lawyer up, then shut up. Talking to the cops only benefits the cops, never the person they are questioning.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    , @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri

    They can suspect all they want but, guilty or innocent, don't help them make their case.

  26. Something that is easier to read than a string to Tweets

    https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=5095

    Anyone who lets the police question them without an attorney is a fool. Yes, lawyers are expensive but being indicted and convicted is a much bigger cost.

  27. @Anon
    Along those lines, Alice Sebold, a famous author who made a fortune off her memoir Lucky and other books, just revealed she accused an innocent man of rape and put him in jail for 16 years. Her story was going to be made into a movie, but the producer noticed there were inconsistencies in her story and hired a private detective to investigate what really happened.

    The whole thing makes me wonder whether she simply had sex one day and then decided to make up a rape story to create some personal drama, then later decided to create more drama by accusing an innocent man. Sebold's family background is the sort that tends to produce people with borderline personality disorder. Her mother was emotionally unstable.

    Replies: @Paul Rise, @Chris Mallory, @Old Prude, @Anonymous

    Along those lines, Alice Sebold, a famous author who made a fortune off her memoir Lucky and other books, just revealed she accused an innocent man of rape and put him in jail for 16 years.

    Hair evidence did more to put they guy into jail than Sebold’s testimony. His conviction was overturned on technical grounds. He very well might be guilty.

  28. @Almost Missouri
    @Wilkey


    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then clearance rates would plummet. That’s not really a world we want to live in.
     
    A more practical concern with the don't-talk-to-police line is that, if you are a police investigator and you interview ten persons of interest, and nine of them give you more or less coherent interviews while the tenth one gives you nothing but "Ima getta lawyer", which person will the police investigator immediately suspect is the guilty party?

    Replies: @Chris Mallory, @Jack D

    You are not going to talk yourself out of criminal charges. Lawyer up, then shut up. Talking to the cops only benefits the cops, never the person they are questioning.

    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Chris Mallory

    That assumes one is guilty. Assume one is innocent.

    Further, if someone close to me has been harmed, I want the police to conduct a successful investigation. I don't want them ignoring other leads and suspecting me because I precipitously lawyered up.

  29. https://www.holtzclawtrial.com/untold-story

    “I submit to you that prosecutors picked the perfect accusers.”

    On January 21, 2016, former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holtzclaw, 29, was sentenced to 263 years in prison after an Oklahoma County jury found him guilty of 18 sexual assault related crimes against eight female accusers.

    “Investigators interviewed people Daniel had contact with while living in Oklahoma City and working for the Oklahoma City police department. When those interviews failed to produce any negative sentiment towards Daniel they next went to his college town just outside of Detroit, and then to his high school home town of Enid. All with the singular purpose of finding someone, anyone, who would cast a shadow over Daniel’s character. Try as they might, they couldn’t. Not a single ex-girlfriend, classmate, teammate, one-night-stand, co-worker, not even an acquaintance. Nobody would say Daniel was anything but quiet, respectful, kind, and focused on his girlfriend, career and his physique.”

    • Replies: @Shel100
    @beavertales

    I was pretty sure that Holtzclaw was framed when I got a look at his repulsive accusers.No way he would want to have sex with them much less go to all the trouble of rape.

  30. @Adept
    @AndrewR

    You might be correct, but the real villain of that story wasn't a cop -- he was an activist lawyer who (successfully) filed a civil suit and used it as a springboard into a criminal prosecution. There was malfeasance and laziness all around, but, as so often is the case, the primary malefactor was a lawyer.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @AndrewR, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Not Raul

    Prosecutors are cops dude

    • Troll: Corvinus
  31. Why is someone who goes to murder Iraqi’s a “hero”?

  32. @Rob
    Hollywood, among many disservices, has led people astray on profiling. Profiling is a lot like dogs that sniff out x. Maybe they can, but probably they are there to give cops probable cause.

    I believe what profilers do is called abductive reasoning. They start with a conclusion, then work backward. That ain’t how proper reasoning is done, folks!

    I read the thread. Judges need to rein prosecutors in on lying about law to juries. First, the prosecutors’ job is not to get a conviction of the guy sitting in the defendant's chair. Their job is to get convictions of the people who actually did the thing if the said thing was illegal.

    On this particular case, how is it ok for the state to re-try someone? Isn’t that a second trial for the same crime? Trials until you get a conviction are obviously unconstitutional, right? When did re-trials become a thing in America?

    When the DA says, ”you can presume guilt because he was in the parking lot” or “you lose the right to self-defense when you bring a gun” juries might take that in instead of the thirty pages of jury instructions. I’m sure judges know it’s hyperbole, but jurors are not legal professionals.

    Conservatives really need to lose their blond respect for cops and the justice system. The long march through the institutions is over. The courts are not on your side.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Art Deco, @Steven Thompson, @Jack D, @G. Poulin, @Paul Mendez

    Many American oligarchs are implicated in an underage sex ring. Those who have a memory that lasts more than a year might remember that the guy who managed said sex ring just happened to “commit suicide” before he could confess the details of who the clients and traffickers were.

    Now his associate is on trial away from the public eye. They are going over the top to conceal it from the public. This bitch who pimped underage girls: not only is she getting the judicial legal rights due to all Americans, and visibly denied to Kyle Rittenhouse, but she’s getting active media silence and almost complete privacy on top of that.

    Yes. Americans-especially right-wingers, but really anybody who gives a damn about this country and rescuing it from its elites, bipartisan political, economic, media, military, and bureaucratic-really do need to accept that we live in a different world now, and that if we’re gonna win, we got to play by different rules.

    • Agree: Paul Mendez
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @nebulafox

    I don't know what you are talking about. The Maxwell trial has been given extensive and sometimes front page coverage in the NY Times and every media source.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/06/nyregion/jeffrey-esptein-ghislaine-maxwell-trial-strategy.html

    They are providing live, minute by minute updates:

    https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/12/06/nyregion/ghislaine-maxwell-trial

    This is being covered as extensively as any other high profile case. Her personal life has been laid bare in every intimate detail. If this is "active media silence and almost complete privacy " I'd hate to think of what noise and lack of privacy would be like.

    Replies: @Hangnail Hans

    , @Pericles
    @nebulafox

    The NY Post has a series of articles on Ghislaine's trial, the latest one spotted just now. They're also following our old friend Jussie Smollett's trial.

    https://nypost.com/2021/12/06/ghislaine-maxwell-asked-teen-to-recruit-others-for-oral-sex-witness/

    https://nypost.com/2021/12/06/jussie-smollett-takes-the-stand-in-his-own-defense/

    Of course, it's uncertain if this can be shown on FB, Twitter, etc.

  33. The case was built on personality profiling. Sounds a lot like the child sex abuse cases in the 80’s where crack pot psychologists created fake cases against innocent people for crimes that had not even been committed.
    Jurors can be easily duped by psychological hocus-pocus. People vote to convict because the crime is heinous, not because the defendant is proved guilty. Normal people don’t reason well.
    I too blame the authorities involved who should know better than to bring these cases. They are despicable people.
    But ultimately I blame the state of the human race. We are smart apes who can reason only so far, only so well. A few of us reason better than most.
    The way out of these injustices is Reason. It will take more and better evolution for us to get there.

  34. @Wilkey
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Jewell was lucky. There have been several movies and documentaries (one by Peter Jackson, another starring Reese Witherspoon and Colin Firth) about the West Memphis Three, a trio of poor white teenagers in Louisiana who were railroaded by a corrupt judge and prosecutor (both Democrats) for the murder of three young boys they almost certainly did not commit. They spent 18 years in prison for it, and at least one of the young men was on death row.

    There are a lot of assholes in power out there. Some are happy to railroad anyone just to get a conviction to help their career. Some just hate other people for any random reason, or for no reason at all.

    People like to think that God or fate or the universe have decreed that whenever there is a horrific crime that the perpetrator will eventually be brought to justice. The heavens have no such rule, and sometimes the perpetrator is never found.

    Replies: @Polistra, @68W58, @Boo Alcindor, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @James Braxton, @Catdog, @Catdog

    Arkansas.

  35. @kaganovitch
    The worst cops out there, the FBI, are highly law-degreed and show it with the way they handle procedures.

    It should not be forgotten that the FBI has, as an institutional policy, a ban on recording interviews with either witnesses or suspects. The only record of these interviews is a form 302 that the agent writes up after the fact. While every 3 man Podunk police department records it's interviews, as a matter of course, the most lavishly funded law enforcement organization in the world finds it too burdensome. Such a policy has only one plausible reason; to maintain the Bureau's ability to be 'creative' - i.e. lie like a rug- in the 302. The FBI's reputation , although severely damaged over the last few years, remains miles and miles ahead of where it should be. Say what you will about J. Edgar, but the man was a P.R. genius.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

    Consider — it is a crime to say something untrue to a federal agent of any kind.

    Even if you honestly believe you are telling the truth.

    You could tell a park ranger you walked by such and such a waterfall when really you saw a different waterfall and bingo! You just committed a federal crime! Unlikely to be prosecuted unless a crime were committed near one of the waterfalls and they want to railroad you.

    A famous example:

    Martha Stewart was scheduled for a friendly chat with federal agents. She went over with her attorney what to say to avoid prosecution and also to only say honest stuff.

    Martha Stewart was convicted of lying to the SEC.

    Had she kept her mouth shut she still might’ve been convicted. She was convicted of obstruction of justice. But by talking to the SEC she had another charge.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Paleo Liberal


    Consider — it is a crime to say something untrue to a federal agent of any kind.

    Even if you honestly believe you are telling the truth.

    You could tell a park ranger you walked by such and such a waterfall when really you saw a different waterfall and bingo! You just committed a federal crime! Unlikely to be prosecuted unless a crime were committed near one of the waterfalls and they want to railroad you.
     
    I think to be charged the false statement is supposed to be material - i.e., it's a meaningful falsehood given what is being asked or related. But that can be a very fine distinction, and perhaps the greater peril is the fact that the Feds get to write their own account of any such interview and then destroy objective records of it (i.e., a videotape) so that they get to later testify as to what you were asked and what your answer was. In 2021 with the ability to store massive amounts of data on small media and cheaply, the only reason that it is permissible to destroy real evidence and substitute the agent's account of it is a corrupt one - i.e., that they can frame you and charge you with a crime you didn't commit.

    Note that with NSA Director Michael Flynn, the FBI did this under the guise that they were ensuring security during the transition to the Trump administration. So moving forward, no Republican NSA Director should communicate with the FBI, since the Bureau sees the pretext of keeping the country safe as a good trap for people whose politics they don't like. Of course, this makes the United States less secure, but that was a short-sighted decision made by the leadership of the FBI in 2017.

    I think others have stated that it is safe to assume that if the FBI is talking to you, they're most often not asking you for information and they already know what happened. They're just asking you to tell them something that differs from the story they've decided is true so that they can charge you with a crime.
    , @Joe Stalin
    @Paleo Liberal


    Had she kept her mouth shut she still might’ve been convicted. She was convicted of obstruction of justice. But by talking to the SEC she had another charge.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOABpY4PKko

    Ask Me No Questions (And I'll Tell You No Lies)

    … You ask me if I ever saw a paradise of blue
    If I said I'd seen some others, yours would fill with rhapsody
    So I'll ask you no questions and you'll tell me no lies
    I'll ask you no questions and there will be no goodbye…
     
    , @Jack D
    @Paleo Liberal

    There is no such thing as a friendly chat with Federal agents. These people are not your friends. I don't know what Stewart's lawyers were thinking. The best advice is never talk to a Federal agent (or a local one either). You are not going to "clear up a misunderstanding".

    I was surprised when the Rittenhouse prosecutor tried to introduce his silence before the jury (for which he was rightly slapped down by the judge). I was also surprised when the prosecutors cast negative aspersions on the Laundrie family (Petito case) and the Crumbley (Michigan school shooter) family when they "failed to cooperate with the police". You have no duty or obligation to cooperate with the police. You can't harbor a fugitive or destroy evidence but you don't have to tell the cops anything. Prosecutors like it when you speak with them and they trick you into incriminating yourself but, even if you are guilty, you have no obligation to make their job easier.

    Replies: @anon, @Paperback Writer

  36. This was explained to me by a very famous Seventh Circuit judge while I was in law school.

    1. Every process has an error rate.
    2. “Justice” (his air quotes) is a process.
    3. There are two basic errors common in the administration of justice: guilty men going free, and innocent men being wrongly incarcerated.
    4. Those error rates vary inversely to each other. As you more aggressively police and prosecute matters, you can put more actually guilty men in prison, but you increase the number of innocent men going, too. If you step back on enforcement, fewer innocent men will be wrongfully convicted, but more guilty men will remain in the community to commit further crimes.
    5. Americans like to talk a big game about how they’d “rather see 20 guilty men go free than see 1 innocent man convicted,” but that’s not really true. Most people–especially people who unfortunately live in high-crime urban areas–would prefer Judge Dredd administering justice on the streets rather than the status quo.
    6. But, no matter how you balance the error rates, you have to understand that there will still be errors. You cannot condemn the entire system based upon individual errors. You can decry it based upon the allocation of errors, or the total number of errors, but individual cases mean nothing.

    • Agree: Hangnail Hans
  37. @AndrewR
    tldr: all cops are bastards.

    The neo-left, for all their many, many flaws, got this one right a long time ago. Most contards will never learn.

    Replies: @Adept, @Art Deco, @JR Ewing, @RonaldReagansLoveChildWithMadonna2, @interesting

    The person promoting his prosecution wasn’t a police officer, it was a local trial lawyer / politician.

    • Thanks: Old Prude, Johann Ricke
  38. @Rob
    Hollywood, among many disservices, has led people astray on profiling. Profiling is a lot like dogs that sniff out x. Maybe they can, but probably they are there to give cops probable cause.

    I believe what profilers do is called abductive reasoning. They start with a conclusion, then work backward. That ain’t how proper reasoning is done, folks!

    I read the thread. Judges need to rein prosecutors in on lying about law to juries. First, the prosecutors’ job is not to get a conviction of the guy sitting in the defendant's chair. Their job is to get convictions of the people who actually did the thing if the said thing was illegal.

    On this particular case, how is it ok for the state to re-try someone? Isn’t that a second trial for the same crime? Trials until you get a conviction are obviously unconstitutional, right? When did re-trials become a thing in America?

    When the DA says, ”you can presume guilt because he was in the parking lot” or “you lose the right to self-defense when you bring a gun” juries might take that in instead of the thirty pages of jury instructions. I’m sure judges know it’s hyperbole, but jurors are not legal professionals.

    Conservatives really need to lose their blond respect for cops and the justice system. The long march through the institutions is over. The courts are not on your side.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Art Deco, @Steven Thompson, @Jack D, @G. Poulin, @Paul Mendez

    Conservatives really need to lose their blond respect for cops and the justice system.

    Prosecutors and judges are not cops. The police are not at fault when prosecutors engage in shenanigans at trial.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Danindc
    @Art Deco

    Agreed. Cops are mostly tough guys who want to do good while far too many lawyers are slimeballs looking to advance careers. It really is that simple.

    , @AndrewR
    @Art Deco

    They're all part of the same system

    Replies: @Art Deco

    , @Not Raul
    @Art Deco


    The police are not at fault when prosecutors engage in shenanigans at trial.
     
    The police are at fault when they lie under oath about a key piece of evidence in the prosecution’s case (the defendant’s uniform was still dirty).
  39. @Adept
    @AndrewR

    You might be correct, but the real villain of that story wasn't a cop -- he was an activist lawyer who (successfully) filed a civil suit and used it as a springboard into a criminal prosecution. There was malfeasance and laziness all around, but, as so often is the case, the primary malefactor was a lawyer.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @AndrewR, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Not Raul

    You might be correct, but the real villain of that story wasn’t a cop — he was an activist lawyer who (successfully) filed a civil suit and used it as a springboard into a criminal prosecution. There was malfeasance and laziness all around, but, as so often is the case, the primary malefactor was a lawyer.

    Yeah, I got that too.

    The plaintiff’s lawyer who represented the Decedent’s family had a pecuniary interest in having the security guard be the killer rather than the usual suspects. If he could establish that the killer was the security guard, then his plaintiff’s case has a big pocket to target in the form of the insured security firm. If one of the gang-bangers was shown to be the killer, most plaintiffs’ attorneys wouldn’t touch the case because there would likely be no insurance coverage and the gang-banger is essentially “judgment proof (lawyer talk for someome who has no real assets or income).”

  40. @Wilkey
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Jewell was lucky. There have been several movies and documentaries (one by Peter Jackson, another starring Reese Witherspoon and Colin Firth) about the West Memphis Three, a trio of poor white teenagers in Louisiana who were railroaded by a corrupt judge and prosecutor (both Democrats) for the murder of three young boys they almost certainly did not commit. They spent 18 years in prison for it, and at least one of the young men was on death row.

    There are a lot of assholes in power out there. Some are happy to railroad anyone just to get a conviction to help their career. Some just hate other people for any random reason, or for no reason at all.

    People like to think that God or fate or the universe have decreed that whenever there is a horrific crime that the perpetrator will eventually be brought to justice. The heavens have no such rule, and sometimes the perpetrator is never found.

    Replies: @Polistra, @68W58, @Boo Alcindor, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @James Braxton, @Catdog, @Catdog

    There are a lot of assholes in power out there. Some are happy to railroad anyone just to get a conviction to help their career. Some just hate other people for any random reason, or for no reason at all.

    People like to think that God or fate or the universe have decreed that whenever there is a horrific crime that the perpetrator will eventually be brought to justice. The heavens have no such rule, and sometimes the perpetrator is never found.

    This is a good point and one that bears examination. Public pressure to solve a notorious crime can be a corrupting influence in the criminal justice system. Public pressure to convict the accused can also be a corrupting influence in the criminal justice system. In both cases you really do need people of character in both the roles of Prosecutor and Judge in order to best ensure a just result.

    What I never understood about people who were enthusiastic about convicting those suspected or accused regardless of the evidence is that a false positive (wrongful conviction) would likely mean that the actual perpetrator of a crime gets to walk free. The desire to punish the perpetrator of a notorious crime should always be preceded by assiduous scrutiny of evidence to ensure that you have the right guy.

    • Replies: @Hangnail Hans
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    What you call "public pressure" may in the end be more an artifact of mass-media propaganda than anything else. Just FWIW.

  41. @Rob
    Hollywood, among many disservices, has led people astray on profiling. Profiling is a lot like dogs that sniff out x. Maybe they can, but probably they are there to give cops probable cause.

    I believe what profilers do is called abductive reasoning. They start with a conclusion, then work backward. That ain’t how proper reasoning is done, folks!

    I read the thread. Judges need to rein prosecutors in on lying about law to juries. First, the prosecutors’ job is not to get a conviction of the guy sitting in the defendant's chair. Their job is to get convictions of the people who actually did the thing if the said thing was illegal.

    On this particular case, how is it ok for the state to re-try someone? Isn’t that a second trial for the same crime? Trials until you get a conviction are obviously unconstitutional, right? When did re-trials become a thing in America?

    When the DA says, ”you can presume guilt because he was in the parking lot” or “you lose the right to self-defense when you bring a gun” juries might take that in instead of the thirty pages of jury instructions. I’m sure judges know it’s hyperbole, but jurors are not legal professionals.

    Conservatives really need to lose their blond respect for cops and the justice system. The long march through the institutions is over. The courts are not on your side.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Art Deco, @Steven Thompson, @Jack D, @G. Poulin, @Paul Mendez

    On the one point, “how is it okay for the state to retry someone,” if the previous trial ended in an acquittal, and the trial is in the same jurisdiction, retrial is impossible. Note that (while irrelevant in this case), it is possible for a single act to violate both state and federal law, and for both state and federal prosecutors to prosecute it: it is irrelevant to one jurisdiction how the other’s trial comes out.

    Anyway, if the trial ends in a mistrial (neither conviction nor acquittal), the prosecution can try again for a conviction. Or if the trial ends in a conviction, which is overturned — the subject hasn’t been acquitted. I was a juror in such a trial (it ended in another mistrial — the prosecution, instead of relying on the felony murder law — the suspect was clearly involved in the crime that led to his partner killing the victim — tried to show that the suspect had actually given the killer the murder weapon, relying on a witness who might as well have had “liar” tattooed on his forehead).

    Trials can continue until they end in either and acquittal or conviction; prosecutors often take a mistrial as a reason not to try again, but they are under no legal obligation to do so.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Steven Thompson

    They ought to be limited to two bites of the apple in the case of mistrials or convictions overturned on appeal.

  42. @AndrewR
    tldr: all cops are bastards.

    The neo-left, for all their many, many flaws, got this one right a long time ago. Most contards will never learn.

    Replies: @Adept, @Art Deco, @JR Ewing, @RonaldReagansLoveChildWithMadonna2, @interesting

    I totally agree, cops can be bad apples and do a lot of mischief on their own, but they’re ultimately just worker bees. The real problem is prosecutors, especially the unelected “staff” ones who do all the work. They are usually the lesser students in law school and they constantly go around with chips on their shoulder and see every case as their own Moby Dick to be conquered.

    The elected guy at the top sets the tone and condones the bullshit, but the assistant DA’s are usually the ones who are causing damage.

  43. @Paleo Liberal
    @kaganovitch

    Consider — it is a crime to say something untrue to a federal agent of any kind.

    Even if you honestly believe you are telling the truth.

    You could tell a park ranger you walked by such and such a waterfall when really you saw a different waterfall and bingo! You just committed a federal crime! Unlikely to be prosecuted unless a crime were committed near one of the waterfalls and they want to railroad you.

    A famous example:

    Martha Stewart was scheduled for a friendly chat with federal agents. She went over with her attorney what to say to avoid prosecution and also to only say honest stuff.

    Martha Stewart was convicted of lying to the SEC.

    Had she kept her mouth shut she still might’ve been convicted. She was convicted of obstruction of justice. But by talking to the SEC she had another charge.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Joe Stalin, @Jack D

    Consider — it is a crime to say something untrue to a federal agent of any kind.

    Even if you honestly believe you are telling the truth.

    You could tell a park ranger you walked by such and such a waterfall when really you saw a different waterfall and bingo! You just committed a federal crime! Unlikely to be prosecuted unless a crime were committed near one of the waterfalls and they want to railroad you.

    I think to be charged the false statement is supposed to be material – i.e., it’s a meaningful falsehood given what is being asked or related. But that can be a very fine distinction, and perhaps the greater peril is the fact that the Feds get to write their own account of any such interview and then destroy objective records of it (i.e., a videotape) so that they get to later testify as to what you were asked and what your answer was. In 2021 with the ability to store massive amounts of data on small media and cheaply, the only reason that it is permissible to destroy real evidence and substitute the agent’s account of it is a corrupt one – i.e., that they can frame you and charge you with a crime you didn’t commit.

    Note that with NSA Director Michael Flynn, the FBI did this under the guise that they were ensuring security during the transition to the Trump administration. So moving forward, no Republican NSA Director should communicate with the FBI, since the Bureau sees the pretext of keeping the country safe as a good trap for people whose politics they don’t like. Of course, this makes the United States less secure, but that was a short-sighted decision made by the leadership of the FBI in 2017.

    I think others have stated that it is safe to assume that if the FBI is talking to you, they’re most often not asking you for information and they already know what happened. They’re just asking you to tell them something that differs from the story they’ve decided is true so that they can charge you with a crime.

  44. @Art Deco
    @Rob

    Conservatives really need to lose their blond respect for cops and the justice system.

    Prosecutors and judges are not cops. The police are not at fault when prosecutors engage in shenanigans at trial.

    Replies: @Danindc, @AndrewR, @Not Raul

    Agreed. Cops are mostly tough guys who want to do good while far too many lawyers are slimeballs looking to advance careers. It really is that simple.

  45. @Anon
    Along those lines, Alice Sebold, a famous author who made a fortune off her memoir Lucky and other books, just revealed she accused an innocent man of rape and put him in jail for 16 years. Her story was going to be made into a movie, but the producer noticed there were inconsistencies in her story and hired a private detective to investigate what really happened.

    The whole thing makes me wonder whether she simply had sex one day and then decided to make up a rape story to create some personal drama, then later decided to create more drama by accusing an innocent man. Sebold's family background is the sort that tends to produce people with borderline personality disorder. Her mother was emotionally unstable.

    Replies: @Paul Rise, @Chris Mallory, @Old Prude, @Anonymous

    I know of a woman who claims she was raped 32 times. She either encountered a regiment of the Red Army, or attended NBA spring training.

    Or is making it up. As in, “I got stoned out of my mind 32 times and woke up next to someone…”

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Old Prude

    'I know of a woman who claims she was raped 32 times. She either encountered a regiment of the Red Army, or attended NBA spring training.'

    I would assume that women who have actually been raped don't talk about it that much.

    People are like animals; if they're badly hurt they keep quiet and hope nobody notices. As a rule, nobody talks about anything really bad that happened to them; not casually.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  46. @anonymous
    Now the FBI comes off looking like garbage even in its normal work of solving crimes.

    To help build a case against Ray, Foltz sought help from the FBI.

    The Bureau sent one of its top criminal profilers — Mark Safarik.

    He had literally co-authored the "Bible" of criminal profiling.
     

    In movies like Silence of the Lambs, they make profiling look like a legitimate science.

    Unfortunately, in real life, it's mostly bullsh**.

    Safarik made up a "profile of the killer" that conveniently matched every detail about Ray.
     

    Replies: @Old Prude, @Skyler the Weird

    FBI. There’s some sh*t. Tying this into the don’t talk to the cops: Definitely don’t talk to the FBI. Somehow they have managed to make “lying to the FBI” a crime, but when the FBI lies to you and to me and to the entire nation, they get a pass.

    Use Bill Clinton as your role model: “I don’t recall” “My memory is — unclear”. And so on.

  47. @Rob
    Hollywood, among many disservices, has led people astray on profiling. Profiling is a lot like dogs that sniff out x. Maybe they can, but probably they are there to give cops probable cause.

    I believe what profilers do is called abductive reasoning. They start with a conclusion, then work backward. That ain’t how proper reasoning is done, folks!

    I read the thread. Judges need to rein prosecutors in on lying about law to juries. First, the prosecutors’ job is not to get a conviction of the guy sitting in the defendant's chair. Their job is to get convictions of the people who actually did the thing if the said thing was illegal.

    On this particular case, how is it ok for the state to re-try someone? Isn’t that a second trial for the same crime? Trials until you get a conviction are obviously unconstitutional, right? When did re-trials become a thing in America?

    When the DA says, ”you can presume guilt because he was in the parking lot” or “you lose the right to self-defense when you bring a gun” juries might take that in instead of the thirty pages of jury instructions. I’m sure judges know it’s hyperbole, but jurors are not legal professionals.

    Conservatives really need to lose their blond respect for cops and the justice system. The long march through the institutions is over. The courts are not on your side.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Art Deco, @Steven Thompson, @Jack D, @G. Poulin, @Paul Mendez

    On this particular case, how is it ok for the state to re-try someone? Isn’t that a second trial for the same crime? Trials until you get a conviction are obviously unconstitutional, right? When did re-trials become a thing in America?

    Since forever. The 5th Amendment (and by extension state law) does not permit the state to retry you if you have been ACQUITTED of a crime. If the jury is hung, then you have not been acquitted and can be tried again (and again) for as many times as necessary until a jury is able to reach a verdict either way. As a practical matter (and sometimes as a matter of law) there is a limit to how many times they will retry you until they give up but this is not for Constitutional reasons.

    • Replies: @JR Ewing
    @Jack D

    On hung juries, yes, they will usually come back and try again unless there is some exogenous reason causing them to drop the case.

    On mistrials, FWIW, even though it wasn't asked, if the judge decides there is an egregious reason to do so, he can declare one "with prejudice" (i.e. what was expected in the Rittenhouse case due to prosecutor malfeasance) and basically guarantee there won't be another trial.

    I think in most circumstances the judge can do something similar with hung juries as well if there is a reason for him to prohibit another trial, but it's even more rare.

    But yes, you only get away for good in most cases if you are acquitted, otherwise they will usually keep trying until there is an actual verdict one way or the other.

  48. @Paleo Liberal
    @kaganovitch

    Consider — it is a crime to say something untrue to a federal agent of any kind.

    Even if you honestly believe you are telling the truth.

    You could tell a park ranger you walked by such and such a waterfall when really you saw a different waterfall and bingo! You just committed a federal crime! Unlikely to be prosecuted unless a crime were committed near one of the waterfalls and they want to railroad you.

    A famous example:

    Martha Stewart was scheduled for a friendly chat with federal agents. She went over with her attorney what to say to avoid prosecution and also to only say honest stuff.

    Martha Stewart was convicted of lying to the SEC.

    Had she kept her mouth shut she still might’ve been convicted. She was convicted of obstruction of justice. But by talking to the SEC she had another charge.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Joe Stalin, @Jack D

    Had she kept her mouth shut she still might’ve been convicted. She was convicted of obstruction of justice. But by talking to the SEC she had another charge.

    Ask Me No Questions (And I’ll Tell You No Lies)

    … You ask me if I ever saw a paradise of blue
    If I said I’d seen some others, yours would fill with rhapsody
    So I’ll ask you no questions and you’ll tell me no lies
    I’ll ask you no questions and there will be no goodbye…

  49. @Paleo Liberal
    @kaganovitch

    Consider — it is a crime to say something untrue to a federal agent of any kind.

    Even if you honestly believe you are telling the truth.

    You could tell a park ranger you walked by such and such a waterfall when really you saw a different waterfall and bingo! You just committed a federal crime! Unlikely to be prosecuted unless a crime were committed near one of the waterfalls and they want to railroad you.

    A famous example:

    Martha Stewart was scheduled for a friendly chat with federal agents. She went over with her attorney what to say to avoid prosecution and also to only say honest stuff.

    Martha Stewart was convicted of lying to the SEC.

    Had she kept her mouth shut she still might’ve been convicted. She was convicted of obstruction of justice. But by talking to the SEC she had another charge.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Joe Stalin, @Jack D

    There is no such thing as a friendly chat with Federal agents. These people are not your friends. I don’t know what Stewart’s lawyers were thinking. The best advice is never talk to a Federal agent (or a local one either). You are not going to “clear up a misunderstanding”.

    I was surprised when the Rittenhouse prosecutor tried to introduce his silence before the jury (for which he was rightly slapped down by the judge). I was also surprised when the prosecutors cast negative aspersions on the Laundrie family (Petito case) and the Crumbley (Michigan school shooter) family when they “failed to cooperate with the police”. You have no duty or obligation to cooperate with the police. You can’t harbor a fugitive or destroy evidence but you don’t have to tell the cops anything. Prosecutors like it when you speak with them and they trick you into incriminating yourself but, even if you are guilty, you have no obligation to make their job easier.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke, JMcG
    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @anon
    @Jack D

    Stewart, at that time, had a personal lawyer who she treated like an employee. Not a white collar criminal lawyer or securities lawyer, who she needed to listen to.
    She thought she knew something, but insider trading is notoriously slippery.
    And was mostly convicted for being a bitch.
    However, she did turn her bad luck into a brilliant career second act. I'm still in awe of how she orchestrated a total image makeover.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Tony

    , @Paperback Writer
    @Jack D


    I was surprised when the Rittenhouse prosecutor tried to introduce his silence before the jury (for which he was rightly slapped down by the judge).

     

    Confused about that. Not about the 5A issue but about Rittenhouse in particular. He *did* speak to the police.

    https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/wisconsin/2020/10/30/details-rittenhouse-arrest-after-kenosha-shooting-shown-records/6092483002/

    While waiting for medical help, Rittenhouse stated: "I shot two white kids."

     

  50. @nebulafox
    @Rob

    Many American oligarchs are implicated in an underage sex ring. Those who have a memory that lasts more than a year might remember that the guy who managed said sex ring just happened to "commit suicide" before he could confess the details of who the clients and traffickers were.

    Now his associate is on trial away from the public eye. They are going over the top to conceal it from the public. This bitch who pimped underage girls: not only is she getting the judicial legal rights due to all Americans, and visibly denied to Kyle Rittenhouse, but she's getting active media silence and almost complete privacy on top of that.

    Yes. Americans-especially right-wingers, but really anybody who gives a damn about this country and rescuing it from its elites, bipartisan political, economic, media, military, and bureaucratic-really do need to accept that we live in a different world now, and that if we're gonna win, we got to play by different rules.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Pericles

    I don’t know what you are talking about. The Maxwell trial has been given extensive and sometimes front page coverage in the NY Times and every media source.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/06/nyregion/jeffrey-esptein-ghislaine-maxwell-trial-strategy.html

    They are providing live, minute by minute updates:

    https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/12/06/nyregion/ghislaine-maxwell-trial

    This is being covered as extensively as any other high profile case. Her personal life has been laid bare in every intimate detail. If this is “active media silence and almost complete privacy ” I’d hate to think of what noise and lack of privacy would be like.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Hangnail Hans
    @Jack D

    Speaking of which, Jussie took the stand today to protest his innocence under oath. Those MAGA guys with the noose will have some explaining to do now!

  51. Proof that they railroad people all the time.

    And yet you dimwits trust the court system to exact capital punishment fairly.

    Dimwits.

    • Agree: byrresheim
  52. @The Alarmist
    @Wilkey


    Most cops are just trying to solve crimes...
     
    Too many cops these days are looking to merely close cases.

    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then clearance rates would plummet.
     
    You kind of make my point.

    One is well advised in these days to say as little as possible to police when one is in absence of counsel.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    One is well advised in these days to say as little as possible to police when one is in absence of counsel.

    Maybe. There is a non-zero but still very small chance that the police will try to frame an innocent person. It’s all well and good to say here in a symposium setting “Don’t talk to the cops,” but in real life if, say, a neighbor is burgled, raped, kidnapped, or murdered, I’m going to want to do what I can to help solve the crime and catch the criminal, without hamstringing the cops by making them wait around for my lawyer. If the interview drags on too long, or they ask me to show up to an interrogation room then, yeah, I’m shutting up until my lawyer arrives.

    I don’t know about you, but personally I like living in a high trust society where citizens work with the cops to help make the community safer.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Wilkey


    [I}n real life if, say, a neighbor is burgled, raped, kidnapped, or murdered, I’m going to want to do what I can to help solve the crime and catch the criminal, without hamstringing the cops by making them wait around for my lawyer.
     
    Help your neighbour by calling the cops on suspicious characters. But if you didn't see anything that is an end to the help. Conjectures are not something the police need members of the public for. Especially if you are sketchy looking like the hero in this case, who was very skittish about going near the car although that was his job.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6-xQ3mhGWg

    Did he do it? Probably.

    Replies: @Kratoklastes

    , @Jack D
    @Wilkey

    You have to use your common sense. If the circumstances are such that you are quite obviously not a suspect (say you are a pedestrian and you witness an auto accident) then sure, cooperate at least until the questions seem as if they are trying to implicate you. Keep in mind though that the police automatically (and with good reason based upon probability) consider the family members of a victim to be the most likely suspects in many sorts of crimes (especially murder).

    As for living in a high trust society, a high trust society is a two way street. You may WANT to live in a high trust society, you may be old enough (or naive enough) to remember or think that you remember a time when that society existed, but you are not going to reconjure that society back into existence by foolishly giving trust to people who don't deserve your trust and don't have your best interests (or even the interests of justice) in mind but are serving their own agendas.

    , @Colin Wright
    @Wilkey

    'I don’t know about you, but personally I like living in a high trust society where citizens work with the cops to help make the community safer.'

    It kinda depends. Cops seem to decide either 'you're one of us' or 'you're the bad man.'

    However justified that is, the course of wisdom for you varies accordingly -- but when in doubt, shut up.

    Also, and as a footnote, cops will lie, freely and convincingly -- even the nice ones. Don't take their word for anything.

    , @Blodgie
    @Wilkey

    You are working from an expired play book.

    What you think are solid normie ethics is foolishness.

  53. And-what next?

    I don’t want to hear “Praise the Lord!”.

    I want to see these lawyers, prosecutors,… tasting the smell of jail.

  54. @Wilkey
    @The Alarmist


    One is well advised in these days to say as little as possible to police when one is in absence of counsel.
     
    Maybe. There is a non-zero but still very small chance that the police will try to frame an innocent person. It’s all well and good to say here in a symposium setting “Don’t talk to the cops,” but in real life if, say, a neighbor is burgled, raped, kidnapped, or murdered, I’m going to want to do what I can to help solve the crime and catch the criminal, without hamstringing the cops by making them wait around for my lawyer. If the interview drags on too long, or they ask me to show up to an interrogation room then, yeah, I’m shutting up until my lawyer arrives.

    I don’t know about you, but personally I like living in a high trust society where citizens work with the cops to help make the community safer.

    Replies: @Sean, @Jack D, @Colin Wright, @Blodgie

    [I}n real life if, say, a neighbor is burgled, raped, kidnapped, or murdered, I’m going to want to do what I can to help solve the crime and catch the criminal, without hamstringing the cops by making them wait around for my lawyer.

    Help your neighbour by calling the cops on suspicious characters. But if you didn’t see anything that is an end to the help. Conjectures are not something the police need members of the public for. Especially if you are sketchy looking like the hero in this case, who was very skittish about going near the car although that was his job.

    Did he do it? Probably.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    @Sean

    The Norfolk 4 (full title: the Norfolk 7 plus a black guy they met in the parking lot and invited to join the rape/murder) tells everyone, everything they need to know about co-operation with the piggies.

    If you do co-operate, there is a non-zero probability that some fuckwit convinces himself that you're involved, and keeps you up all night badgering you until you confess. (And if you're a person within σ of median IQ, you will probably 'confess' eventually: hypnotic suggestion is a thing).

    It took me quite a while to be convinced about the prevalence of false confession: I'm now absolutely convinced that confessions should not be admissible as evidence, unless as a video recording of the entire period during which the confession was obtained.

    A person on median intelligence cannot rely on their 'guess' that they would not eventually buckle under the stress of a professional - or even semi-professional, piggie-type - interrogator who is allowed to lie.

    Replies: @Paul Mendez, @Gabe Ruth

  55. This is worse than the Thin Blue Line case.

    When incompetence is that willful, it’s downright criminal. People involved must be brought to justice.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjSrTUkqKbA&ab_channel=Mediamusic%2Ce-journal

  56. @Wilkey
    @The Alarmist


    One is well advised in these days to say as little as possible to police when one is in absence of counsel.
     
    Maybe. There is a non-zero but still very small chance that the police will try to frame an innocent person. It’s all well and good to say here in a symposium setting “Don’t talk to the cops,” but in real life if, say, a neighbor is burgled, raped, kidnapped, or murdered, I’m going to want to do what I can to help solve the crime and catch the criminal, without hamstringing the cops by making them wait around for my lawyer. If the interview drags on too long, or they ask me to show up to an interrogation room then, yeah, I’m shutting up until my lawyer arrives.

    I don’t know about you, but personally I like living in a high trust society where citizens work with the cops to help make the community safer.

    Replies: @Sean, @Jack D, @Colin Wright, @Blodgie

    You have to use your common sense. If the circumstances are such that you are quite obviously not a suspect (say you are a pedestrian and you witness an auto accident) then sure, cooperate at least until the questions seem as if they are trying to implicate you. Keep in mind though that the police automatically (and with good reason based upon probability) consider the family members of a victim to be the most likely suspects in many sorts of crimes (especially murder).

    As for living in a high trust society, a high trust society is a two way street. You may WANT to live in a high trust society, you may be old enough (or naive enough) to remember or think that you remember a time when that society existed, but you are not going to reconjure that society back into existence by foolishly giving trust to people who don’t deserve your trust and don’t have your best interests (or even the interests of justice) in mind but are serving their own agendas.

  57. @Jack D
    @nebulafox

    I don't know what you are talking about. The Maxwell trial has been given extensive and sometimes front page coverage in the NY Times and every media source.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/06/nyregion/jeffrey-esptein-ghislaine-maxwell-trial-strategy.html

    They are providing live, minute by minute updates:

    https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/12/06/nyregion/ghislaine-maxwell-trial

    This is being covered as extensively as any other high profile case. Her personal life has been laid bare in every intimate detail. If this is "active media silence and almost complete privacy " I'd hate to think of what noise and lack of privacy would be like.

    Replies: @Hangnail Hans

    Speaking of which, Jussie took the stand today to protest his innocence under oath. Those MAGA guys with the noose will have some explaining to do now!

  58. @Art Deco
    @Rob

    Conservatives really need to lose their blond respect for cops and the justice system.

    Prosecutors and judges are not cops. The police are not at fault when prosecutors engage in shenanigans at trial.

    Replies: @Danindc, @AndrewR, @Not Raul

    They’re all part of the same system

    • Troll: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @AndrewR

    No, they're not. Investigation and patrol are distinct functions from making motions in court. Prosecutors do not commonly interrogate witnesses or suspects and commonly have no aptitude for it. They contribute no sweat to actual order maintenance. They are lawyers and not a few are ICNBW narcissists.

    Replies: @David In TN

  59. @Wilkey
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Jewell was lucky. There have been several movies and documentaries (one by Peter Jackson, another starring Reese Witherspoon and Colin Firth) about the West Memphis Three, a trio of poor white teenagers in Louisiana who were railroaded by a corrupt judge and prosecutor (both Democrats) for the murder of three young boys they almost certainly did not commit. They spent 18 years in prison for it, and at least one of the young men was on death row.

    There are a lot of assholes in power out there. Some are happy to railroad anyone just to get a conviction to help their career. Some just hate other people for any random reason, or for no reason at all.

    People like to think that God or fate or the universe have decreed that whenever there is a horrific crime that the perpetrator will eventually be brought to justice. The heavens have no such rule, and sometimes the perpetrator is never found.

    Replies: @Polistra, @68W58, @Boo Alcindor, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @James Braxton, @Catdog, @Catdog

    Where do you get the “almost certainly” stuff?

    I think this case is an example of Hollywood propaganda distorting reality.

    The Misskelley kid confessed and implicated the others twice. Once with his lawyer in the room.

    Championing this case was just an opportunity for celebrities to virtue signal and earn points by saying “rednecks bad.”

    • Replies: @Getaclue
    @James Braxton

    I saw some video of the Trial -- one of them was a really weird "Goth" type and he acted like a psycho during the trial -- sure that didn't help much...it was believable he could do whatever given the performance I saw....

  60. @Rob
    Hollywood, among many disservices, has led people astray on profiling. Profiling is a lot like dogs that sniff out x. Maybe they can, but probably they are there to give cops probable cause.

    I believe what profilers do is called abductive reasoning. They start with a conclusion, then work backward. That ain’t how proper reasoning is done, folks!

    I read the thread. Judges need to rein prosecutors in on lying about law to juries. First, the prosecutors’ job is not to get a conviction of the guy sitting in the defendant's chair. Their job is to get convictions of the people who actually did the thing if the said thing was illegal.

    On this particular case, how is it ok for the state to re-try someone? Isn’t that a second trial for the same crime? Trials until you get a conviction are obviously unconstitutional, right? When did re-trials become a thing in America?

    When the DA says, ”you can presume guilt because he was in the parking lot” or “you lose the right to self-defense when you bring a gun” juries might take that in instead of the thirty pages of jury instructions. I’m sure judges know it’s hyperbole, but jurors are not legal professionals.

    Conservatives really need to lose their blond respect for cops and the justice system. The long march through the institutions is over. The courts are not on your side.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Art Deco, @Steven Thompson, @Jack D, @G. Poulin, @Paul Mendez

    Yeah, only a blond would think that they are.

    • LOL: Rob
  61. @Wilkey
    @Altai

    I have mixed feelings about this. Most cops are just trying to solve crimes, not railroad anyone. If I'm innocent (which of course I am) and can thoroughly back up my alibi I'm going to do the police a favor and give them any information I have. But never speculate, never answer more than is needed, and if they keep questioning you then get yourself a lawyer. Clamming up and refusing to answer legitimate questions just wastes their time and resources investigating an innocent person.

    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then clearance rates would plummet. That's not really a world we want to live in. If you want to live in that world you can find it in much of the ghetto.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Almost Missouri, @Harry Baldwin, @Jack D, @Johann Ricke, @Jack D, @Ben tillman

    Most cops are just trying to solve crimes, not railroad anyone.

    I wouldn’t apply that assumption to the FBI, though. Not lately.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Harry Baldwin

    Agreed. The FBI is quite hopeless. Ideally, it would be dismantled and the special agents in the Criminal Investigation Division discharged and barred from federal employment in the future.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  62. Standard search for the Great White Defendant operation by liberal White cops and DAs.

    Lancaster was a small town 60 miles away from downtown Los Angeles. But in huge Los Angeles County. About 30, 40 years ago it was built up
    with new houses. The houses were marketed to Los Angeles City and County employees. Who by then were mostly affirmative action blacks. Who bought the cheap 5% down houses. Because of the distance a major commuter bus system was installed. Day care centers open at 4 AM and don’t close till 10 AM. The buses start moving at 4 AM too for the 50 to 70 mile trip to the workplace.

    Exactly like Pittsburgh Ca near Oakland. Marketed to government workers. But many were black. And their kids ruined the schools and grew up to be thugs and criminals. Now Lancaster is full of section 8, welfare mammas and their thugs And halfway houses for parolees. High School is dangerous because of the black kids. Impossible to control the thugs because dey big fat black mammas have tantrums at school board meetings. And ACLU NAACP ADL monitors the school district for any suspicion of trying to control black jungle behavior. Police walk on eggs so as not to
    arrest blacks.

    • Replies: @Ex-Californian from Lancaster
    @Alden

    I grew up in Lancaster during the 80s and 90s. It was a fairly quiet big town up until the early-mid 90s. I lived in a modest neighborhood where lots of the dads were test pilots at Edwards AFB, engineers, etc. After the Cold War ended, a lot of the big aerospace companies started downsizing, merging, and finally leaving the area as California was also becoming hostile to industry at that point. With all the social capital moving on, LA county started using it as a cheap dumping ground. Apartment complexes in Lancaster and even more so in neighboring Palmdale were flooded with section 8 blacks and gang bangers. Around the same time, Mexicans started pushing the white population out of the old downtown area, and have continued ever since. I was in high school in the late 90s early 00s. We had tons of (very entertaining) confrontations between the blacks and hispanic in school. Of course they would hassle us white kids too if we were ever outnumbered. Tons of drug dealing on and off campus by the little gang bangers as well. I left nearly 20 years ago, and haven’t looked back. I still have a couple of family members that don’t have the good sense to leave. I visit every couple of years. It’s hard to think of it as a town in the USA anymore, let alone the place I spent the first 18 years of my life. The house I grew up in might as well be in Juarez now.

    Also, I remember when R. Rex Parris was just the town ambulance chaser with the cheap tv commercials and billboards. The Affordable Tire guy had better commercials than him…

  63. Speaking of justice ….

    With this Omicron deal apparently–more data, of course, required–rolling out infectious but mild, we seem to be near the end game of the Xi-Fauci drama. I.e. left with something endemic like the flu that just kills a few tens of thousands (for America) of mostly old sick folks each year.

    But we still need the “crimes against humanity” trial and execution of Fauci and his “gain of function” gang.

    • Agree: Ben tillman
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @AnotherDad

    “But we still need the “crimes against humanity” trial and execution of Fauci and his “gain of function” gang.“

    Rather than bitch about it, pull a Kyle. You’re completely in the right. A jury will find you not guilty. They are “evil”.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

  64. @Wilkey
    @Altai

    I have mixed feelings about this. Most cops are just trying to solve crimes, not railroad anyone. If I'm innocent (which of course I am) and can thoroughly back up my alibi I'm going to do the police a favor and give them any information I have. But never speculate, never answer more than is needed, and if they keep questioning you then get yourself a lawyer. Clamming up and refusing to answer legitimate questions just wastes their time and resources investigating an innocent person.

    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then clearance rates would plummet. That's not really a world we want to live in. If you want to live in that world you can find it in much of the ghetto.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Almost Missouri, @Harry Baldwin, @Jack D, @Johann Ricke, @Jack D, @Ben tillman

    Most cops are just trying to solve crimes,

    Maybe on TV. In real life, most cops are just trying to bide their time until they can collect their pensions. If they can clear their case backlog by pinning every open felony in their book with a (somewhat) similar MO on you they will be glad to do so if you will cooperate and confess.

    • Agree: Paul Mendez
  65. Anonymous[141] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    Along those lines, Alice Sebold, a famous author who made a fortune off her memoir Lucky and other books, just revealed she accused an innocent man of rape and put him in jail for 16 years. Her story was going to be made into a movie, but the producer noticed there were inconsistencies in her story and hired a private detective to investigate what really happened.

    The whole thing makes me wonder whether she simply had sex one day and then decided to make up a rape story to create some personal drama, then later decided to create more drama by accusing an innocent man. Sebold's family background is the sort that tends to produce people with borderline personality disorder. Her mother was emotionally unstable.

    Replies: @Paul Rise, @Chris Mallory, @Old Prude, @Anonymous

    I don’t know the details of the case, but there’s a good chance she had a medical examination done, after the rape. Which usually gives some strong circumstantial evidence of force. She reported this thing right away, not waiting. Also, the right away report is much more consistent with an actual rape than the fame-seeking remembering it later.

    The issue appears to be who she sent to prison. And some issues with her testimony and lineup ID. Not, with saying she wasn’t raped at all.

  66. anon[283] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    @Paleo Liberal

    There is no such thing as a friendly chat with Federal agents. These people are not your friends. I don't know what Stewart's lawyers were thinking. The best advice is never talk to a Federal agent (or a local one either). You are not going to "clear up a misunderstanding".

    I was surprised when the Rittenhouse prosecutor tried to introduce his silence before the jury (for which he was rightly slapped down by the judge). I was also surprised when the prosecutors cast negative aspersions on the Laundrie family (Petito case) and the Crumbley (Michigan school shooter) family when they "failed to cooperate with the police". You have no duty or obligation to cooperate with the police. You can't harbor a fugitive or destroy evidence but you don't have to tell the cops anything. Prosecutors like it when you speak with them and they trick you into incriminating yourself but, even if you are guilty, you have no obligation to make their job easier.

    Replies: @anon, @Paperback Writer

    Stewart, at that time, had a personal lawyer who she treated like an employee. Not a white collar criminal lawyer or securities lawyer, who she needed to listen to.
    She thought she knew something, but insider trading is notoriously slippery.
    And was mostly convicted for being a bitch.
    However, she did turn her bad luck into a brilliant career second act. I’m still in awe of how she orchestrated a total image makeover.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @anon

    Neil Cavuto's assessment of the import of Douglas Faneuil's testimony at her trial: "Be careful how you treat people on your way up, 'cuz you're gonna meet 'em all again on your way back down".

    , @Tony
    @anon

    " I’m still in awe of how she orchestrated a total image makeover."
    You mean associating with other known convicted felons. (Snoop) I'm surprised they didnt get her for that.

  67. @Sean
    @Wilkey


    [I}n real life if, say, a neighbor is burgled, raped, kidnapped, or murdered, I’m going to want to do what I can to help solve the crime and catch the criminal, without hamstringing the cops by making them wait around for my lawyer.
     
    Help your neighbour by calling the cops on suspicious characters. But if you didn't see anything that is an end to the help. Conjectures are not something the police need members of the public for. Especially if you are sketchy looking like the hero in this case, who was very skittish about going near the car although that was his job.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6-xQ3mhGWg

    Did he do it? Probably.

    Replies: @Kratoklastes

    The Norfolk 4 (full title: the Norfolk 7 plus a black guy they met in the parking lot and invited to join the rape/murder) tells everyone, everything they need to know about co-operation with the piggies.

    If you do co-operate, there is a non-zero probability that some fuckwit convinces himself that you’re involved, and keeps you up all night badgering you until you confess. (And if you’re a person within σ of median IQ, you will probably ‘confess’ eventually: hypnotic suggestion is a thing).

    It took me quite a while to be convinced about the prevalence of false confession: I’m now absolutely convinced that confessions should not be admissible as evidence, unless as a video recording of the entire period during which the confession was obtained.

    A person on median intelligence cannot rely on their ‘guess’ that they would not eventually buckle under the stress of a professional – or even semi-professional, piggie-type – interrogator who is allowed to lie.

    • Replies: @Paul Mendez
    @Kratoklastes

    Agree!

    Look up the “Reid Interrogation Technique.”

    , @Gabe Ruth
    @Kratoklastes

    Read most of the article you linked, and was wondering about the race of these people. Before looking, I guessed that they were black, for a few reasons: "Danial" (lol), implied lack of intelligence, and the residual influence of the propaganda that the whole legal system has it in for blacks and do this kind of shit to them because of racism.

    Guess I'm not cynical enough yet. Should have known since I'd never heard of these guys, though of course I know all about the Central Park guys.

    I've been justice-system pilled for a while, but the level of depravity is just hard for me to understand. Wild West is looking better every day.

  68. @Dave Pinsen
    Have they investigated the pot smoking gang bangers? Does the DNA of any of them match the DNA found under the woman’s nail?

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen

  69. I think this case overview from U of M Law, Mich. State and U of C Irvine’s Registry of Exonerations will help fill in the gaps found in the other links provided. (I dislike “police had information….” and other such vague statements in stories like these.)

    https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=5095

    • Thanks: Voltarde
  70. @nebulafox
    @Rob

    Many American oligarchs are implicated in an underage sex ring. Those who have a memory that lasts more than a year might remember that the guy who managed said sex ring just happened to "commit suicide" before he could confess the details of who the clients and traffickers were.

    Now his associate is on trial away from the public eye. They are going over the top to conceal it from the public. This bitch who pimped underage girls: not only is she getting the judicial legal rights due to all Americans, and visibly denied to Kyle Rittenhouse, but she's getting active media silence and almost complete privacy on top of that.

    Yes. Americans-especially right-wingers, but really anybody who gives a damn about this country and rescuing it from its elites, bipartisan political, economic, media, military, and bureaucratic-really do need to accept that we live in a different world now, and that if we're gonna win, we got to play by different rules.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Pericles

    The NY Post has a series of articles on Ghislaine’s trial, the latest one spotted just now. They’re also following our old friend Jussie Smollett’s trial.

    https://nypost.com/2021/12/06/ghislaine-maxwell-asked-teen-to-recruit-others-for-oral-sex-witness/

    https://nypost.com/2021/12/06/jussie-smollett-takes-the-stand-in-his-own-defense/

    Of course, it’s uncertain if this can be shown on FB, Twitter, etc.

  71. @Wilkey
    @Altai

    I have mixed feelings about this. Most cops are just trying to solve crimes, not railroad anyone. If I'm innocent (which of course I am) and can thoroughly back up my alibi I'm going to do the police a favor and give them any information I have. But never speculate, never answer more than is needed, and if they keep questioning you then get yourself a lawyer. Clamming up and refusing to answer legitimate questions just wastes their time and resources investigating an innocent person.

    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then clearance rates would plummet. That's not really a world we want to live in. If you want to live in that world you can find it in much of the ghetto.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Almost Missouri, @Harry Baldwin, @Jack D, @Johann Ricke, @Jack D, @Ben tillman

    Most cops are just trying to solve crimes, not railroad anyone.

    While that is likely true, they are limited by native cognitive ability and the fact that they aren’t typically on scene at the time of the incident. Many develop bad habits such as snap judgments on the suspects they interrogate, to the point that they’ll try to make a case where none exists. If you happen to be on the wrong end of such an interview, you will, at minimum, spend huge amounts of money on mounting a legal defense. At worst, a guilty verdict will change the course of your life in ways you never thought possible.

  72. @AnotherDad
    Speaking of justice ....

    With this Omicron deal apparently--more data, of course, required--rolling out infectious but mild, we seem to be near the end game of the Xi-Fauci drama. I.e. left with something endemic like the flu that just kills a few tens of thousands (for America) of mostly old sick folks each year.

    But we still need the "crimes against humanity" trial and execution of Fauci and his "gain of function" gang.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “But we still need the “crimes against humanity” trial and execution of Fauci and his “gain of function” gang.“

    Rather than bitch about it, pull a Kyle. You’re completely in the right. A jury will find you not guilty. They are “evil”.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @Corvinus

    Rather than bitch about it, pull a Kyle. You’re completely in the right. A jury will find you not guilty. They are “evil”.

    So, Corvinus turns out to be a FBI informant/provocateur. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! As a matter of interest, where exactly were you on Jan. 6 past?

    Replies: @Corvinus

  73. @Rob
    Hollywood, among many disservices, has led people astray on profiling. Profiling is a lot like dogs that sniff out x. Maybe they can, but probably they are there to give cops probable cause.

    I believe what profilers do is called abductive reasoning. They start with a conclusion, then work backward. That ain’t how proper reasoning is done, folks!

    I read the thread. Judges need to rein prosecutors in on lying about law to juries. First, the prosecutors’ job is not to get a conviction of the guy sitting in the defendant's chair. Their job is to get convictions of the people who actually did the thing if the said thing was illegal.

    On this particular case, how is it ok for the state to re-try someone? Isn’t that a second trial for the same crime? Trials until you get a conviction are obviously unconstitutional, right? When did re-trials become a thing in America?

    When the DA says, ”you can presume guilt because he was in the parking lot” or “you lose the right to self-defense when you bring a gun” juries might take that in instead of the thirty pages of jury instructions. I’m sure judges know it’s hyperbole, but jurors are not legal professionals.

    Conservatives really need to lose their blond respect for cops and the justice system. The long march through the institutions is over. The courts are not on your side.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Art Deco, @Steven Thompson, @Jack D, @G. Poulin, @Paul Mendez

    I believe what profilers do is called abductive reasoning. They start with a conclusion, then work backward. That ain’t how proper reasoning is done, folks

    Most criminal profilers are, whether they know it or not, are giving “cold readings.” I used to do tarot card readings. There are a variety of tricks you use to take advantage of the many cognitive weaknesses of the human mind. It’s the verbal version of slight-of-hand.

    What Safarik did was a “hot reading.” That’s when the reader does preliminary research on the sitter, then uses this information in the reading as if he was divining it just now. There’s no “art” to it, just lying.

    Cold readings are harmless parlor games. Hot readings are the tool of frauds and conmen.

    • Replies: @magilla
    @Paul Mendez


    Hot readings are the tool of frauds and conmen.
     
    And professional interrogators. It is a technique people who go to SERE school are taught to resist.
  74. @Pat Hannagan
    There are eight million stories in the Naked City; this has been one of them.

    But do you think there might be another way of looking at this story? A way where you're not invested in a black vs white, good guys versus bad guys way of thinking you're usually warning us against?

    What if Sgt. Ray Jennings got what he deserved?

    As ZedMan re-quoted Sobran, or Sam Francis, on his podcast recently: The problem with conservatives is that they are so sure that their ideas are so powerful that they just sit back and rely on the force of their ideas sneaking up on the left and slitting their throats.

    It reminds me of Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter repeating every so often enough to reinforce themselves and their followers that "America is the greatest nation on earth."

    Are they aware of Switzerland?

    Do they think all nations have a Detroit or Philadelphia or any of the many shitholes of USA?

    Faced with a clearly imploding society how do Americans still project outward their moral judgements on the world?

    The clearly unjust story of this post would not be found in the top 50 Western nations of the world yet is an every day occurrence in the USA. Americans have become so inured to injustice that their core nation focused solely on one court case adjudicating the self-defense of a White man and nationally let out a sigh of relief when justice was upheld. In fact, many celebrated the mundane fact of justice given the fact of the colour of the young man's skin.

    American hero, Sgt. Ray Jennings, was no hero. He took a job enforcing the will of multinational corporations upon weaker nations unable to maintain national sovereignty in the face of the mightiest military force in world history. He had a job killing as an enforcer of wealthy people's rules. He's no better or less than any standover man or mafia thug enforcing the will of the family.

    Sgt. Ray Jennings was a slither of metal of a cog in the ongoing human-meat-grinder that is the USA.

    It's important we remember that.

    I wish that we could have an HBD blog that could focus on these matters instead of a stock standard schlock neo-con version of CNN fur seal clapping for fish our supposed "National Heroes". Next we'll have a Blackhawk landing mid post to celebrate the Invasion of Grenada with the handing over of the game ball for Steve to ceremoniously kick the game off.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDNupK1RkdY

    Replies: @Cloudswrest

    You’re implying he’s the character “Barr” from Jack Reacher.

  75. @Kratoklastes
    @Sean

    The Norfolk 4 (full title: the Norfolk 7 plus a black guy they met in the parking lot and invited to join the rape/murder) tells everyone, everything they need to know about co-operation with the piggies.

    If you do co-operate, there is a non-zero probability that some fuckwit convinces himself that you're involved, and keeps you up all night badgering you until you confess. (And if you're a person within σ of median IQ, you will probably 'confess' eventually: hypnotic suggestion is a thing).

    It took me quite a while to be convinced about the prevalence of false confession: I'm now absolutely convinced that confessions should not be admissible as evidence, unless as a video recording of the entire period during which the confession was obtained.

    A person on median intelligence cannot rely on their 'guess' that they would not eventually buckle under the stress of a professional - or even semi-professional, piggie-type - interrogator who is allowed to lie.

    Replies: @Paul Mendez, @Gabe Ruth

    Agree!

    Look up the “Reid Interrogation Technique.”

  76. @Corvinus
    @AnotherDad

    “But we still need the “crimes against humanity” trial and execution of Fauci and his “gain of function” gang.“

    Rather than bitch about it, pull a Kyle. You’re completely in the right. A jury will find you not guilty. They are “evil”.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    Rather than bitch about it, pull a Kyle. You’re completely in the right. A jury will find you not guilty. They are “evil”.

    So, Corvinus turns out to be a FBI informant/provocateur. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you! As a matter of interest, where exactly were you on Jan. 6 past?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @kaganovitch

    I’m CIA, and now you are on my list.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LOjSEW09NxE

  77. OT: you missed this one, Mr. Sailer:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/12/06/black-couple-home-value-white-washing/

    A Black couple says an appraiser lowballed them. So, they ‘whitewashed’ their home and say the value shot up.

  78. @Jack D
    @Rob


    On this particular case, how is it ok for the state to re-try someone? Isn’t that a second trial for the same crime? Trials until you get a conviction are obviously unconstitutional, right? When did re-trials become a thing in America?
     
    Since forever. The 5th Amendment (and by extension state law) does not permit the state to retry you if you have been ACQUITTED of a crime. If the jury is hung, then you have not been acquitted and can be tried again (and again) for as many times as necessary until a jury is able to reach a verdict either way. As a practical matter (and sometimes as a matter of law) there is a limit to how many times they will retry you until they give up but this is not for Constitutional reasons.

    Replies: @JR Ewing

    On hung juries, yes, they will usually come back and try again unless there is some exogenous reason causing them to drop the case.

    On mistrials, FWIW, even though it wasn’t asked, if the judge decides there is an egregious reason to do so, he can declare one “with prejudice” (i.e. what was expected in the Rittenhouse case due to prosecutor malfeasance) and basically guarantee there won’t be another trial.

    I think in most circumstances the judge can do something similar with hung juries as well if there is a reason for him to prohibit another trial, but it’s even more rare.

    But yes, you only get away for good in most cases if you are acquitted, otherwise they will usually keep trying until there is an actual verdict one way or the other.

  79. @AndrewR
    @Art Deco

    They're all part of the same system

    Replies: @Art Deco

    No, they’re not. Investigation and patrol are distinct functions from making motions in court. Prosecutors do not commonly interrogate witnesses or suspects and commonly have no aptitude for it. They contribute no sweat to actual order maintenance. They are lawyers and not a few are ICNBW narcissists.

    • Replies: @David In TN
    @Art Deco

    "They are lawyers and not a few are ICNBW narcissists."

    The Rittenhouse prosecutors fit the description. Some people think they weren't seriously trying to win, but they would have been proclaimed heroes by the MSM if they had,

  80. @Harry Baldwin
    @Wilkey

    Most cops are just trying to solve crimes, not railroad anyone.

    I wouldn't apply that assumption to the FBI, though. Not lately.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Agreed. The FBI is quite hopeless. Ideally, it would be dismantled and the special agents in the Criminal Investigation Division discharged and barred from federal employment in the future.

    • Agree: JMcG
    • Thanks: lavoisier
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Art Deco

    “The FBI is quite hopeless”

    To the contrary, they have done more good than harm in their existence.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Art Deco

  81. @anon
    @Jack D

    Stewart, at that time, had a personal lawyer who she treated like an employee. Not a white collar criminal lawyer or securities lawyer, who she needed to listen to.
    She thought she knew something, but insider trading is notoriously slippery.
    And was mostly convicted for being a bitch.
    However, she did turn her bad luck into a brilliant career second act. I'm still in awe of how she orchestrated a total image makeover.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Tony

    Neil Cavuto’s assessment of the import of Douglas Faneuil’s testimony at her trial: “Be careful how you treat people on your way up, ‘cuz you’re gonna meet ’em all again on your way back down”.

  82. @Old Prude
    @Anon

    I know of a woman who claims she was raped 32 times. She either encountered a regiment of the Red Army, or attended NBA spring training.

    Or is making it up. As in, "I got stoned out of my mind 32 times and woke up next to someone..."

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘I know of a woman who claims she was raped 32 times. She either encountered a regiment of the Red Army, or attended NBA spring training.’

    I would assume that women who have actually been raped don’t talk about it that much.

    People are like animals; if they’re badly hurt they keep quiet and hope nobody notices. As a rule, nobody talks about anything really bad that happened to them; not casually.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Colin Wright

    Out of respect for their privacy, I'll keep the details vague, but I am close to survivors of rape, sexual assault, etc. Can confirm that it isn't a subject that is discussed casually... sadly, what tends to happen is that the women blame themselves for not doing "XYZ", because it's their way of coping and asserting some degree of retrospective control. The reason is because if they are feeling that they had some degree of control over the situation, that if it do something or don't do something in the future, it won't happen again. It's really bad for their mental health long-term, of course, because they end up blaming themselves. But men can get this wrong: it's a defense mechanism, deep down, rather than self-pity or drama. It's not hard to see why they really struggle to embrace what needs to be embraced if they are to not blame themselves and ultimately heal.

    There are other little give-aways, depending on the circumstances. Like, say, the woman tends to not want to be alone around young men of a given ethnic group unless a male she trusts is with her. But tellingly, it's just men below a certain age without families: she's OK around old people, kids, other women, etc from that group.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  83. @kaganovitch
    @Corvinus

    Rather than bitch about it, pull a Kyle. You’re completely in the right. A jury will find you not guilty. They are “evil”.

    So, Corvinus turns out to be a FBI informant/provocateur. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! As a matter of interest, where exactly were you on Jan. 6 past?

    Replies: @Corvinus

    I’m CIA, and now you are on my list.

  84. @Art Deco
    @Harry Baldwin

    Agreed. The FBI is quite hopeless. Ideally, it would be dismantled and the special agents in the Criminal Investigation Division discharged and barred from federal employment in the future.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “The FBI is quite hopeless”

    To the contrary, they have done more good than harm in their existence.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Corvinus



    “The FBI is quite hopeless”
     
    To the contrary, they have done more good than harm in their existence.
     
    Family connection?


    https://co-a2.freetls.fastly.net/co-uploads/2021/01/FBi-flyer-Mildred-Old-Crow.jpg
    , @Art Deco
    @Corvinus

    1. About 75% of the manpower devoted to law enforcement is in local agencies. That's where the rubber meets the road in re order maintenance.

    2. State police are of a satisfactory dimension to provide consultative services for local police. It's only in the most rarefied realm that you benefit from federal services.

    3. We have specialized agencies at the federal level (not well managed, but there) to attack consequential problems. That's the Marshal Service, the DEA, the Customs and Border Protection, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Diplomatic Security Service, the Secret Service, the Coast Guard. Some of these would benefit from re-organization and improved budgets. I haven't seen anything to indicate they've decayed into an arm of the Democratic Party.

    4. You shear off the crime lab and the cybersecurity corps, and what you have is the subagency that promoted the likes of Andrew McCabe within the ranks and has now restored to him his full pension. The agency which is persecuting January 6 protestors, the agency that slaughtered Randy Weaver's family. It's rotten to the core.

    5. The federal criminal code is bloated and needs to be scarified.

  85. @Wilkey
    @The Alarmist


    One is well advised in these days to say as little as possible to police when one is in absence of counsel.
     
    Maybe. There is a non-zero but still very small chance that the police will try to frame an innocent person. It’s all well and good to say here in a symposium setting “Don’t talk to the cops,” but in real life if, say, a neighbor is burgled, raped, kidnapped, or murdered, I’m going to want to do what I can to help solve the crime and catch the criminal, without hamstringing the cops by making them wait around for my lawyer. If the interview drags on too long, or they ask me to show up to an interrogation room then, yeah, I’m shutting up until my lawyer arrives.

    I don’t know about you, but personally I like living in a high trust society where citizens work with the cops to help make the community safer.

    Replies: @Sean, @Jack D, @Colin Wright, @Blodgie

    ‘I don’t know about you, but personally I like living in a high trust society where citizens work with the cops to help make the community safer.’

    It kinda depends. Cops seem to decide either ‘you’re one of us’ or ‘you’re the bad man.’

    However justified that is, the course of wisdom for you varies accordingly — but when in doubt, shut up.

    Also, and as a footnote, cops will lie, freely and convincingly — even the nice ones. Don’t take their word for anything.

  86. @beavertales
    https://www.holtzclawtrial.com/untold-story

    "I submit to you that prosecutors picked the perfect accusers."

    On January 21, 2016, former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holtzclaw, 29, was sentenced to 263 years in prison after an Oklahoma County jury found him guilty of 18 sexual assault related crimes against eight female accusers.

    "Investigators interviewed people Daniel had contact with while living in Oklahoma City and working for the Oklahoma City police department. When those interviews failed to produce any negative sentiment towards Daniel they next went to his college town just outside of Detroit, and then to his high school home town of Enid. All with the singular purpose of finding someone, anyone, who would cast a shadow over Daniel’s character. Try as they might, they couldn’t. Not a single ex-girlfriend, classmate, teammate, one-night-stand, co-worker, not even an acquaintance. Nobody would say Daniel was anything but quiet, respectful, kind, and focused on his girlfriend, career and his physique."

    Replies: @Shel100

    I was pretty sure that Holtzclaw was framed when I got a look at his repulsive accusers.No way he would want to have sex with them much less go to all the trouble of rape.

  87. @Steven Thompson
    @Rob

    On the one point, "how is it okay for the state to retry someone," if the previous trial ended in an acquittal, and the trial is in the same jurisdiction, retrial is impossible. Note that (while irrelevant in this case), it is possible for a single act to violate both state and federal law, and for both state and federal prosecutors to prosecute it: it is irrelevant to one jurisdiction how the other's trial comes out.

    Anyway, if the trial ends in a mistrial (neither conviction nor acquittal), the prosecution can try again for a conviction. Or if the trial ends in a conviction, which is overturned -- the subject hasn't been acquitted. I was a juror in such a trial (it ended in another mistrial -- the prosecution, instead of relying on the felony murder law -- the suspect was clearly involved in the crime that led to his partner killing the victim -- tried to show that the suspect had actually given the killer the murder weapon, relying on a witness who might as well have had "liar" tattooed on his forehead).

    Trials can continue until they end in either and acquittal or conviction; prosecutors often take a mistrial as a reason not to try again, but they are under no legal obligation to do so.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    They ought to be limited to two bites of the apple in the case of mistrials or convictions overturned on appeal.

  88. A man convicted of murder without any evidence at all. Welcome to liberal progressive America.

  89. @Anonymous
    @Adept


    You might be correct, but the real villain of that story wasn’t a cop — he was an activist lawyer who (successfully) filed a civil suit and used it as a springboard into a criminal prosecution. There was malfeasance and laziness all around, but, as so often is the case, the primary malefactor was a lawyer.

     

    And Ray Jennings is free and Clint Ehrlich a God-fearing man because of Dateline


    https://www.theday.com/storyimage/NL/20181012/ENT09/181019806/EP/1/1/EP-181019806.jpg

     

    …and the grace of God.

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix

    Keith Morrison is one of the few TV journalists that the Stix family loves. And if the truth prove to be otherwise, I’d just as soon not know.

  90. @Almost Missouri
    @Wilkey


    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then clearance rates would plummet. That’s not really a world we want to live in.
     
    A more practical concern with the don't-talk-to-police line is that, if you are a police investigator and you interview ten persons of interest, and nine of them give you more or less coherent interviews while the tenth one gives you nothing but "Ima getta lawyer", which person will the police investigator immediately suspect is the guilty party?

    Replies: @Chris Mallory, @Jack D

    They can suspect all they want but, guilty or innocent, don’t help them make their case.

  91. @Wilkey
    @Altai

    I have mixed feelings about this. Most cops are just trying to solve crimes, not railroad anyone. If I'm innocent (which of course I am) and can thoroughly back up my alibi I'm going to do the police a favor and give them any information I have. But never speculate, never answer more than is needed, and if they keep questioning you then get yourself a lawyer. Clamming up and refusing to answer legitimate questions just wastes their time and resources investigating an innocent person.

    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then clearance rates would plummet. That's not really a world we want to live in. If you want to live in that world you can find it in much of the ghetto.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Almost Missouri, @Harry Baldwin, @Jack D, @Johann Ricke, @Jack D, @Ben tillman

    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then clearance rates would plummet.

    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then false conviction rates would plummet even more.

    As a society, we have an interest in high clearance rates, but as an individual, I have an even greater interest in not providing the cops with the tools to ruin my life. If the State wants to make a case against me, then let them but I ain’t helping them. The latter trumps the former.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @Jack D


    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then false conviction rates would plummet even more.
     
    And for every person no longer falsely imprisoned there would be 10 or 50 or 100 criminals still on the street and a proportionate number of victims. Refusing to speak to the police is ghetto mentality.

    All we are doing here is considering a hypothetical. How many of us have actually been a witness or potential witness in a serious criminal case?

    You can say you'd clam up and get a lawyer. Under certain circumstances I would do so, as well. But wake up one morning with an officer at your door telling you that your neighbor has been brutally attacked, or that the wife or daughter has been raped, or that their child has been kidnapped, or even just that their house has been burgled. Do you really see yourself refusing to tell them what you know, even if it's only to say "When I woke up at 2:00 am to pee I looked outside and didn't notice anything unusual"?

    Well OK then. Good for you - I guess.

    Replies: @AndrewR

  92. Breaking News Steve!

    The DOJ is closing the Emmitt Till case!

    https://news.yahoo.com/u-ends-probe-emmett-till-012145489.html

  93. @Corvinus
    @Art Deco

    “The FBI is quite hopeless”

    To the contrary, they have done more good than harm in their existence.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Art Deco

    “The FBI is quite hopeless”

    To the contrary, they have done more good than harm in their existence.

    Family connection?

  94. @Jack D
    @Wilkey


    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then clearance rates would plummet.
     
    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then false conviction rates would plummet even more.

    As a society, we have an interest in high clearance rates, but as an individual, I have an even greater interest in not providing the cops with the tools to ruin my life. If the State wants to make a case against me, then let them but I ain't helping them. The latter trumps the former.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then false conviction rates would plummet even more.

    And for every person no longer falsely imprisoned there would be 10 or 50 or 100 criminals still on the street and a proportionate number of victims. Refusing to speak to the police is ghetto mentality.

    All we are doing here is considering a hypothetical. How many of us have actually been a witness or potential witness in a serious criminal case?

    You can say you’d clam up and get a lawyer. Under certain circumstances I would do so, as well. But wake up one morning with an officer at your door telling you that your neighbor has been brutally attacked, or that the wife or daughter has been raped, or that their child has been kidnapped, or even just that their house has been burgled. Do you really see yourself refusing to tell them what you know, even if it’s only to say “When I woke up at 2:00 am to pee I looked outside and didn’t notice anything unusual”?

    Well OK then. Good for you – I guess.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Wilkey

    Your dubious hypotheticals prove the need for strong community defense, not the need for cooperating with cops.

  95. @Wilkey
    @Jack D


    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then false conviction rates would plummet even more.
     
    And for every person no longer falsely imprisoned there would be 10 or 50 or 100 criminals still on the street and a proportionate number of victims. Refusing to speak to the police is ghetto mentality.

    All we are doing here is considering a hypothetical. How many of us have actually been a witness or potential witness in a serious criminal case?

    You can say you'd clam up and get a lawyer. Under certain circumstances I would do so, as well. But wake up one morning with an officer at your door telling you that your neighbor has been brutally attacked, or that the wife or daughter has been raped, or that their child has been kidnapped, or even just that their house has been burgled. Do you really see yourself refusing to tell them what you know, even if it's only to say "When I woke up at 2:00 am to pee I looked outside and didn't notice anything unusual"?

    Well OK then. Good for you - I guess.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    Your dubious hypotheticals prove the need for strong community defense, not the need for cooperating with cops.

  96. @Alden
    Standard search for the Great White Defendant operation by liberal White cops and DAs.

    Lancaster was a small town 60 miles away from downtown Los Angeles. But in huge Los Angeles County. About 30, 40 years ago it was built up
    with new houses. The houses were marketed to Los Angeles City and County employees. Who by then were mostly affirmative action blacks. Who bought the cheap 5% down houses. Because of the distance a major commuter bus system was installed. Day care centers open at 4 AM and don’t close till 10 AM. The buses start moving at 4 AM too for the 50 to 70 mile trip to the workplace.

    Exactly like Pittsburgh Ca near Oakland. Marketed to government workers. But many were black. And their kids ruined the schools and grew up to be thugs and criminals. Now Lancaster is full of section 8, welfare mammas and their thugs And halfway houses for parolees. High School is dangerous because of the black kids. Impossible to control the thugs because dey big fat black mammas have tantrums at school board meetings. And ACLU NAACP ADL monitors the school district for any suspicion of trying to control black jungle behavior. Police walk on eggs so as not to
    arrest blacks.

    Replies: @Ex-Californian from Lancaster

    I grew up in Lancaster during the 80s and 90s. It was a fairly quiet big town up until the early-mid 90s. I lived in a modest neighborhood where lots of the dads were test pilots at Edwards AFB, engineers, etc. After the Cold War ended, a lot of the big aerospace companies started downsizing, merging, and finally leaving the area as California was also becoming hostile to industry at that point. With all the social capital moving on, LA county started using it as a cheap dumping ground. Apartment complexes in Lancaster and even more so in neighboring Palmdale were flooded with section 8 blacks and gang bangers. Around the same time, Mexicans started pushing the white population out of the old downtown area, and have continued ever since. I was in high school in the late 90s early 00s. We had tons of (very entertaining) confrontations between the blacks and hispanic in school. Of course they would hassle us white kids too if we were ever outnumbered. Tons of drug dealing on and off campus by the little gang bangers as well. I left nearly 20 years ago, and haven’t looked back. I still have a couple of family members that don’t have the good sense to leave. I visit every couple of years. It’s hard to think of it as a town in the USA anymore, let alone the place I spent the first 18 years of my life. The house I grew up in might as well be in Juarez now.

    Also, I remember when R. Rex Parris was just the town ambulance chaser with the cheap tv commercials and billboards. The Affordable Tire guy had better commercials than him…

    • Thanks: Hangnail Hans
  97. @anon
    @Jack D

    Stewart, at that time, had a personal lawyer who she treated like an employee. Not a white collar criminal lawyer or securities lawyer, who she needed to listen to.
    She thought she knew something, but insider trading is notoriously slippery.
    And was mostly convicted for being a bitch.
    However, she did turn her bad luck into a brilliant career second act. I'm still in awe of how she orchestrated a total image makeover.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Tony

    ” I’m still in awe of how she orchestrated a total image makeover.”
    You mean associating with other known convicted felons. (Snoop) I’m surprised they didnt get her for that.

  98. @Adept
    @AndrewR

    You might be correct, but the real villain of that story wasn't a cop -- he was an activist lawyer who (successfully) filed a civil suit and used it as a springboard into a criminal prosecution. There was malfeasance and laziness all around, but, as so often is the case, the primary malefactor was a lawyer.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @AndrewR, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Not Raul

    You might be correct, but the real villain of that story wasn’t a cop — he was an activist lawyer who (successfully) filed a civil suit and used it as a springboard into a criminal prosecution. There was malfeasance and laziness all around, but, as so often is the case, the primary malefactor was a lawyer.

    The cop lied under oath. If he had told the truth (the uniform was still dirty), the defendant would have been acquitted. The cop is a villain.

    The prosecutor just did what prosecutors do every day. There was a community still outraged by the unsolved murder of a young woman, the prosecutor was given a lead, so he tried to get a conviction. It’s not pretty, it might be unjust; but that’s how the system works. If you don’t like it, change the system. There are lots of innocent people behind bars. The public wants their prosecutors to be productive.

  99. @Art Deco
    @Rob

    Conservatives really need to lose their blond respect for cops and the justice system.

    Prosecutors and judges are not cops. The police are not at fault when prosecutors engage in shenanigans at trial.

    Replies: @Danindc, @AndrewR, @Not Raul

    The police are not at fault when prosecutors engage in shenanigans at trial.

    The police are at fault when they lie under oath about a key piece of evidence in the prosecution’s case (the defendant’s uniform was still dirty).

  100. The public wants their prosecutors to be productive.

    One of the worst such practices is judging the “productivity” of a legislator by the number of bills he gets passed. The avoirdupois method.

    As if justice is like Stephen King supermarket paperbacks, sold by weight.

    • Agree: Hangnail Hans
  101. @AndrewR
    tldr: all cops are bastards.

    The neo-left, for all their many, many flaws, got this one right a long time ago. Most contards will never learn.

    Replies: @Adept, @Art Deco, @JR Ewing, @RonaldReagansLoveChildWithMadonna2, @interesting

    I think it fair to change your opinion of the cops, if in fact the cops are becoming like every other beauracratic entity, inevitably becoming corrupt, increasingly geared toward furthering its own existence, excusing or covering up its own malfeasance etc.

    Because i’m totally on the Fuck The Police bandwagon, and i was raised by law-abiding, law-respecting Eisenhower republicans.

  102. @Polistra
    @Wilkey

    This happens a lot more than people want to admit. If you are poor and white, there's little to no chance you'll find the media or any part of the so-called criminal-justice system on your side. This story reminded me first of Mike Nifong and then of myself, when I was in a very bad place one day long ago. Though completely innocent, I only escaped from a horrible fate by the grace of God, and little else. I had simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time, and an hysterical woman decided to railroad me. She nearly succeeded.

    Replies: @thenon

    I saw a video about the events related to the “happy face killer “. One of the things that struck me was that the guy who saved the innocent man was a journalist, and that the cop who did the case had a feeling that something was wrong. but was unable to pursue it (trapped in the system with no time or support to pursue?) and his boss the head cop fought the exoneration and was pissed off at everyone but himself even at the end. People get mental blinders put up when pursuing a goal, and it takes an outside person to see this blindness. One of the things we lose track of on this blog while rightfully excoriating bad Journalists and Lawyers is that we need them for defense of the innocent. How to change the system without destroying it is the question. marxist and right-wing extremism is the most dangerous threat to our way of life.

    • Replies: @Adept
    @thenon

    If I'm not mistaken, the blind and arrogant "head cop" was a lawyer -- the assistant DA. It is so often the case that when something is really rotten in this country, lawyers are the driving force. The legal system is nothing more than a game to so many of them, and I am convinced that both the adversarial system of justice and the Common Law (which is literally Talmudic in its reverence for obscure precedence and the decisions of tribal elders) are terrible mistakes and are now utterly unfit to purpose.

    Replies: @Ben tillman, @Jack D

  103. His naïvety is shocking.

    First by volunteering to be a murderer for hire for a corrupt government.

    And then by voluntarily going down to the cop shop and talking.

    Please, parents raise your sons to be a bit cynical—this ain’t the 50s.

  104. @Wilkey
    @The Alarmist


    One is well advised in these days to say as little as possible to police when one is in absence of counsel.
     
    Maybe. There is a non-zero but still very small chance that the police will try to frame an innocent person. It’s all well and good to say here in a symposium setting “Don’t talk to the cops,” but in real life if, say, a neighbor is burgled, raped, kidnapped, or murdered, I’m going to want to do what I can to help solve the crime and catch the criminal, without hamstringing the cops by making them wait around for my lawyer. If the interview drags on too long, or they ask me to show up to an interrogation room then, yeah, I’m shutting up until my lawyer arrives.

    I don’t know about you, but personally I like living in a high trust society where citizens work with the cops to help make the community safer.

    Replies: @Sean, @Jack D, @Colin Wright, @Blodgie

    You are working from an expired play book.

    What you think are solid normie ethics is foolishness.

  105. @thenon
    @Polistra

    I saw a video about the events related to the "happy face killer ". One of the things that struck me was that the guy who saved the innocent man was a journalist, and that the cop who did the case had a feeling that something was wrong. but was unable to pursue it (trapped in the system with no time or support to pursue?) and his boss the head cop fought the exoneration and was pissed off at everyone but himself even at the end. People get mental blinders put up when pursuing a goal, and it takes an outside person to see this blindness. One of the things we lose track of on this blog while rightfully excoriating bad Journalists and Lawyers is that we need them for defense of the innocent. How to change the system without destroying it is the question. marxist and right-wing extremism is the most dangerous threat to our way of life.

    Replies: @Adept

    If I’m not mistaken, the blind and arrogant “head cop” was a lawyer — the assistant DA. It is so often the case that when something is really rotten in this country, lawyers are the driving force. The legal system is nothing more than a game to so many of them, and I am convinced that both the adversarial system of justice and the Common Law (which is literally Talmudic in its reverence for obscure precedence and the decisions of tribal elders) are terrible mistakes and are now utterly unfit to purpose.

    • Replies: @Ben tillman
    @Adept

    The common law is not Talmudic at all. It could hardly be more different. It is law, not commentary on the law. And it is glorious.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Adept

    , @Jack D
    @Adept

    The adversarial system of justice is, as Churchill said of democracy, the worst possible system except for all the others.

    As to the Common Law, note that in most states crimes at common law no longer exist and the only crimes are statutory crimes as set forth in that state's Penal Code. Of course the common law system of reliance on precedent in the interpretation of statutes still exists. Again, perhaps this is a terrible idea but looking at a statute fresh each time means that you have to continuously reinvent the wheel and each time another judge reinvents it, it might have a different shape, so that's an even worse idea.

    Replies: @Hangnail Hans, @Adept

  106. @Corvinus
    @Art Deco

    “The FBI is quite hopeless”

    To the contrary, they have done more good than harm in their existence.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Art Deco

    1. About 75% of the manpower devoted to law enforcement is in local agencies. That’s where the rubber meets the road in re order maintenance.

    2. State police are of a satisfactory dimension to provide consultative services for local police. It’s only in the most rarefied realm that you benefit from federal services.

    3. We have specialized agencies at the federal level (not well managed, but there) to attack consequential problems. That’s the Marshal Service, the DEA, the Customs and Border Protection, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Diplomatic Security Service, the Secret Service, the Coast Guard. Some of these would benefit from re-organization and improved budgets. I haven’t seen anything to indicate they’ve decayed into an arm of the Democratic Party.

    4. You shear off the crime lab and the cybersecurity corps, and what you have is the subagency that promoted the likes of Andrew McCabe within the ranks and has now restored to him his full pension. The agency which is persecuting January 6 protestors, the agency that slaughtered Randy Weaver’s family. It’s rotten to the core.

    5. The federal criminal code is bloated and needs to be scarified.

    • Agree: lavoisier
  107. @Danindc
    This reminds me of the murder of Kent Heitholt. Black guy obviously did it (Michael Boyd) but they have white guy (Charles Erickson) still in prison. Ryan Ferguson made this case famous.

    Boyd has never been investigated. Total travesty of justice. Even worse than this Jennings case.

    Replies: @Lurker

    Similar to the Amada Knox case. The black guy almost certainly did it.

    • Replies: @Danindc
    @Lurker

    Yes Rudy Guede. He’s out now. They desperately want the perp to be white.

    , @Joe Joe
    @Lurker

    AND THAT BLACK GUY IS ABOUT TO BE RELEASED FROM PRISON!!! :-(

    , @Truth
    @Lurker

    Almost certainly?

    WHY DIDN'T THEY CONVICT HIS BLAQ AZZ!?!?!

    Replies: @Lurker

  108. Weeks after the shooting, detectives asked Ray to come in for an interview.

    He wanted to help them solve the murder, so he told them all his theories about how it happened.

    My gut feeling – big mistake. Tell them only what you know, nothing more.

    • Replies: @Paul Mendez
    @Lurker


    My gut feeling – big mistake. Tell them only what you know, nothing more
     
    Getting the suspect to speculate about the crime is a key part of the Reid Technique.

    The interrogator will ask things like, “What do you think happened?” or “If you were the killer, how would you have gotten into her house?” or “Why do you think we didn’t find her house key?”

    If your speculations match the facts too closely, you go to the top of the suspect list.
  109. @Lurker
    @Danindc

    Similar to the Amada Knox case. The black guy almost certainly did it.

    Replies: @Danindc, @Joe Joe, @Truth

    Yes Rudy Guede. He’s out now. They desperately want the perp to be white.

  110. @Lurker
    @Danindc

    Similar to the Amada Knox case. The black guy almost certainly did it.

    Replies: @Danindc, @Joe Joe, @Truth

    AND THAT BLACK GUY IS ABOUT TO BE RELEASED FROM PRISON!!! 🙁

  111. @Paul Mendez
    @Rob


    I believe what profilers do is called abductive reasoning. They start with a conclusion, then work backward. That ain’t how proper reasoning is done, folks
     
    Most criminal profilers are, whether they know it or not, are giving “cold readings.” I used to do tarot card readings. There are a variety of tricks you use to take advantage of the many cognitive weaknesses of the human mind. It’s the verbal version of slight-of-hand.

    What Safarik did was a “hot reading.” That’s when the reader does preliminary research on the sitter, then uses this information in the reading as if he was divining it just now. There’s no “art” to it, just lying.

    Cold readings are harmless parlor games. Hot readings are the tool of frauds and conmen.

    Replies: @magilla

    Hot readings are the tool of frauds and conmen.

    And professional interrogators. It is a technique people who go to SERE school are taught to resist.

  112. @Wilkey
    @Altai

    I have mixed feelings about this. Most cops are just trying to solve crimes, not railroad anyone. If I'm innocent (which of course I am) and can thoroughly back up my alibi I'm going to do the police a favor and give them any information I have. But never speculate, never answer more than is needed, and if they keep questioning you then get yourself a lawyer. Clamming up and refusing to answer legitimate questions just wastes their time and resources investigating an innocent person.

    If every innocent person clammed up when questioned by the police then clearance rates would plummet. That's not really a world we want to live in. If you want to live in that world you can find it in much of the ghetto.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Almost Missouri, @Harry Baldwin, @Jack D, @Johann Ricke, @Jack D, @Ben tillman

    Yeah, it worked great for George Zimmerman — at least till a political prosecution was started. Talked to the cops for hours; they found his story convincing, and that was it until the media stirred up a Lynch mob.

    • Replies: @Hangnail Hans
    @Ben tillman



    Talked to the cops for hours; they found his story convincing, and that was it until the media stirred up a Lynch mob.
     
    For all intents and purposes, the media are a lynch mob at this point.
    , @Art Deco
    @Ben tillman

    Jerilyn Merritt said that the conduct of the trial prosecutor was unprofessional to a degree she'd not seen in nearly 40 years of practicing criminal defense law.

    What the police had was (1) a recording of his conversation with the non-emergency dispatcher, (2) maps of the complex, (3) crime scene photographs (including one which showed where he'd dropped his key chain), (4) photographs taken just after the assault by members of the public, photos which showed him covered in blood, (5) eyewitness statements from two members of the public who were right there when Martin was beating on him (not the pseudo-eyewitnesses that the prosecutor put on the stand, people who saw nothing), and (6) the autopsy report which included an estimate of the distance between Zimmerman's pistol and Martin's chest when it was fired and demonstrated what the bullet trajectory was. They weren't able to account for every minute in the timeline, but there was only one modest lacuna. Liberals who talk about this case (including Jonathan Turley, who should know better) pretend for effect that there was no evidence of the sequence of events bar Zimmerman's account memorialized in police reports. Others chatter about 'Stand Your Ground' laws even though it was never invoked in his defense because he had no option to retreat. The local prosecutor had ample reason to decline to proceed with the case. The trial was a tremendous waste of everyone's resources.

  113. @Adept
    @thenon

    If I'm not mistaken, the blind and arrogant "head cop" was a lawyer -- the assistant DA. It is so often the case that when something is really rotten in this country, lawyers are the driving force. The legal system is nothing more than a game to so many of them, and I am convinced that both the adversarial system of justice and the Common Law (which is literally Talmudic in its reverence for obscure precedence and the decisions of tribal elders) are terrible mistakes and are now utterly unfit to purpose.

    Replies: @Ben tillman, @Jack D

    The common law is not Talmudic at all. It could hardly be more different. It is law, not commentary on the law. And it is glorious.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Ben tillman

    I suppose you could say then that Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England are the Talmud. While Blackstone never had the formal force of law, in the early days of the young country when law libraries were scarce and there were not a lot of American case precedents yet, Blackstone was often the only source available and was given great weight well into the 19th century. Even today when the Supreme Court wants to cite the state of the law in early America, they will refer to Blackstone.

    , @Adept
    @Ben tillman

    As I understand it, the Talmud consists of commentaries -- written interpretations of biblical scripture -- that are in many cases considered a form of binding precedent. Where the Bible is vague on points of law, e.g. in dietary restrictions or what constitutes "work" on the Sabbath, those commentaries lay down the law. And they are scrupulously followed, to the letter. (Such is the importance of these "commentaries" that the Karaites, who disregard precedent and follow their own compass, are hardly considered Jews at all.)

    This is exactly analogous to the Common Law system of using prior rulings as precedent. What is a ruling but one judge's commentary on how the law should be interpreted?

    I know that this system worked at one time, but now the sheer weight of centuries of accumulated precedent -- and, make no mistake, cases from the 1800s are routinely cited -- that the system is mostly in shambles. A skilled "legal research" team (something that would hardly exist outside the Common Law system,) can find precedent that covers both sides of almost any issue.

  114. @Adept
    @thenon

    If I'm not mistaken, the blind and arrogant "head cop" was a lawyer -- the assistant DA. It is so often the case that when something is really rotten in this country, lawyers are the driving force. The legal system is nothing more than a game to so many of them, and I am convinced that both the adversarial system of justice and the Common Law (which is literally Talmudic in its reverence for obscure precedence and the decisions of tribal elders) are terrible mistakes and are now utterly unfit to purpose.

    Replies: @Ben tillman, @Jack D

    The adversarial system of justice is, as Churchill said of democracy, the worst possible system except for all the others.

    As to the Common Law, note that in most states crimes at common law no longer exist and the only crimes are statutory crimes as set forth in that state’s Penal Code. Of course the common law system of reliance on precedent in the interpretation of statutes still exists. Again, perhaps this is a terrible idea but looking at a statute fresh each time means that you have to continuously reinvent the wheel and each time another judge reinvents it, it might have a different shape, so that’s an even worse idea.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Hangnail Hans
    @Jack D

    Yeah, the adversarial system of justice is full of flaws and demerits, only no one has been able to improve on it yet.

    This should not be misunderstood to say that we can't improve it. We can and should, and sometimes we even do.

    , @Adept
    @Jack D

    The Civil Law "inquisitorial" system is by all accounts better suited to the age we find ourselves in. It keeps things more... civil. A low-trust and litigious society, such as we find ourselves in, can hardly be trusted with an adversarial system of civil justice. Look no further than the nearest ambulance-chaser's billboard to see how the Common Law has been abused and degraded. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

    Really, the adversarial system results in busybody lawyers who have a financial incentive to overstep boundaries. Here are some real examples:

    - A rape in an abandoned building is blamed on the building owner.
    - Harassment in a stadium parking lot is blamed on the stadium owner.
    - A student harming another student in an off-campus apartment is blamed on the school.
    - A post-event bad-weather auto-accident is blamed on event host for not cancelling.
    - A harm from using a product bought from a 3rd party is blamed on its manufacturer.

    This sort of thing is largely unique to the adversarial system, with crusading lawyers actively looking for payouts, and judges who sit on their hands on the sidelines.

  115. @Ben tillman
    @Adept

    The common law is not Talmudic at all. It could hardly be more different. It is law, not commentary on the law. And it is glorious.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Adept

    I suppose you could say then that Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England are the Talmud. While Blackstone never had the formal force of law, in the early days of the young country when law libraries were scarce and there were not a lot of American case precedents yet, Blackstone was often the only source available and was given great weight well into the 19th century. Even today when the Supreme Court wants to cite the state of the law in early America, they will refer to Blackstone.

  116. @Lurker
    @Danindc

    Similar to the Amada Knox case. The black guy almost certainly did it.

    Replies: @Danindc, @Joe Joe, @Truth

    Almost certainly?

    WHY DIDN’T THEY CONVICT HIS BLAQ AZZ!?!?!

    • Replies: @Lurker
    @Truth


    WHY DIDN’T THEY CONVICT HIS BLAQ AZZ!?!?!
     
    They did.

    I wrote 'almost certainly' because I'm not in the Italian police, was not a witness, never been to Italy. Thus I'm equivocating by conceding the technical possibility he didn't do it.

    From what I remember the case against Knox and the Italian guy looked very shaky from the start. Seems amazing that it even went to court.
  117. @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Wilkey


    There are a lot of assholes in power out there. Some are happy to railroad anyone just to get a conviction to help their career. Some just hate other people for any random reason, or for no reason at all.

    People like to think that God or fate or the universe have decreed that whenever there is a horrific crime that the perpetrator will eventually be brought to justice. The heavens have no such rule, and sometimes the perpetrator is never found.
     
    This is a good point and one that bears examination. Public pressure to solve a notorious crime can be a corrupting influence in the criminal justice system. Public pressure to convict the accused can also be a corrupting influence in the criminal justice system. In both cases you really do need people of character in both the roles of Prosecutor and Judge in order to best ensure a just result.

    What I never understood about people who were enthusiastic about convicting those suspected or accused regardless of the evidence is that a false positive (wrongful conviction) would likely mean that the actual perpetrator of a crime gets to walk free. The desire to punish the perpetrator of a notorious crime should always be preceded by assiduous scrutiny of evidence to ensure that you have the right guy.

    Replies: @Hangnail Hans

    What you call “public pressure” may in the end be more an artifact of mass-media propaganda than anything else. Just FWIW.

  118. @Ben tillman
    @Adept

    The common law is not Talmudic at all. It could hardly be more different. It is law, not commentary on the law. And it is glorious.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Adept

    As I understand it, the Talmud consists of commentaries — written interpretations of biblical scripture — that are in many cases considered a form of binding precedent. Where the Bible is vague on points of law, e.g. in dietary restrictions or what constitutes “work” on the Sabbath, those commentaries lay down the law. And they are scrupulously followed, to the letter. (Such is the importance of these “commentaries” that the Karaites, who disregard precedent and follow their own compass, are hardly considered Jews at all.)

    This is exactly analogous to the Common Law system of using prior rulings as precedent. What is a ruling but one judge’s commentary on how the law should be interpreted?

    I know that this system worked at one time, but now the sheer weight of centuries of accumulated precedent — and, make no mistake, cases from the 1800s are routinely cited — that the system is mostly in shambles. A skilled “legal research” team (something that would hardly exist outside the Common Law system,) can find precedent that covers both sides of almost any issue.

    • Thanks: Dan Hayes
  119. @Ben tillman
    @Wilkey

    Yeah, it worked great for George Zimmerman — at least till a political prosecution was started. Talked to the cops for hours; they found his story convincing, and that was it until the media stirred up a Lynch mob.

    Replies: @Hangnail Hans, @Art Deco

    Talked to the cops for hours; they found his story convincing, and that was it until the media stirred up a Lynch mob.

    For all intents and purposes, the media are a lynch mob at this point.

    • Agree: Ben tillman
  120. @Jack D
    @Adept

    The adversarial system of justice is, as Churchill said of democracy, the worst possible system except for all the others.

    As to the Common Law, note that in most states crimes at common law no longer exist and the only crimes are statutory crimes as set forth in that state's Penal Code. Of course the common law system of reliance on precedent in the interpretation of statutes still exists. Again, perhaps this is a terrible idea but looking at a statute fresh each time means that you have to continuously reinvent the wheel and each time another judge reinvents it, it might have a different shape, so that's an even worse idea.

    Replies: @Hangnail Hans, @Adept

    Yeah, the adversarial system of justice is full of flaws and demerits, only no one has been able to improve on it yet.

    This should not be misunderstood to say that we can’t improve it. We can and should, and sometimes we even do.

  121. @Jack D
    @Adept

    The adversarial system of justice is, as Churchill said of democracy, the worst possible system except for all the others.

    As to the Common Law, note that in most states crimes at common law no longer exist and the only crimes are statutory crimes as set forth in that state's Penal Code. Of course the common law system of reliance on precedent in the interpretation of statutes still exists. Again, perhaps this is a terrible idea but looking at a statute fresh each time means that you have to continuously reinvent the wheel and each time another judge reinvents it, it might have a different shape, so that's an even worse idea.

    Replies: @Hangnail Hans, @Adept

    The Civil Law “inquisitorial” system is by all accounts better suited to the age we find ourselves in. It keeps things more… civil. A low-trust and litigious society, such as we find ourselves in, can hardly be trusted with an adversarial system of civil justice. Look no further than the nearest ambulance-chaser’s billboard to see how the Common Law has been abused and degraded. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

    Really, the adversarial system results in busybody lawyers who have a financial incentive to overstep boundaries. Here are some real examples:

    – A rape in an abandoned building is blamed on the building owner.
    – Harassment in a stadium parking lot is blamed on the stadium owner.
    – A student harming another student in an off-campus apartment is blamed on the school.
    – A post-event bad-weather auto-accident is blamed on event host for not cancelling.
    – A harm from using a product bought from a 3rd party is blamed on its manufacturer.

    This sort of thing is largely unique to the adversarial system, with crusading lawyers actively looking for payouts, and judges who sit on their hands on the sidelines.

  122. @Wilkey
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Jewell was lucky. There have been several movies and documentaries (one by Peter Jackson, another starring Reese Witherspoon and Colin Firth) about the West Memphis Three, a trio of poor white teenagers in Louisiana who were railroaded by a corrupt judge and prosecutor (both Democrats) for the murder of three young boys they almost certainly did not commit. They spent 18 years in prison for it, and at least one of the young men was on death row.

    There are a lot of assholes in power out there. Some are happy to railroad anyone just to get a conviction to help their career. Some just hate other people for any random reason, or for no reason at all.

    People like to think that God or fate or the universe have decreed that whenever there is a horrific crime that the perpetrator will eventually be brought to justice. The heavens have no such rule, and sometimes the perpetrator is never found.

    Replies: @Polistra, @68W58, @Boo Alcindor, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @James Braxton, @Catdog, @Catdog

    I’m not an expert on this case but I’ve looked into it in the past and it seemed to me like the three teens were guilty and Jackson’s arguments for their innocence were weak and flailing.

  123. @Wilkey
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Jewell was lucky. There have been several movies and documentaries (one by Peter Jackson, another starring Reese Witherspoon and Colin Firth) about the West Memphis Three, a trio of poor white teenagers in Louisiana who were railroaded by a corrupt judge and prosecutor (both Democrats) for the murder of three young boys they almost certainly did not commit. They spent 18 years in prison for it, and at least one of the young men was on death row.

    There are a lot of assholes in power out there. Some are happy to railroad anyone just to get a conviction to help their career. Some just hate other people for any random reason, or for no reason at all.

    People like to think that God or fate or the universe have decreed that whenever there is a horrific crime that the perpetrator will eventually be brought to justice. The heavens have no such rule, and sometimes the perpetrator is never found.

    Replies: @Polistra, @68W58, @Boo Alcindor, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @James Braxton, @Catdog, @Catdog

    But I’ve just refreshed my memory of the case on Wikipedia and see that some of the parents of the victims believe that they were innocent. I grant that that alone gives me “reasonable doubt”.

  124. @Lurker

    Weeks after the shooting, detectives asked Ray to come in for an interview.

    He wanted to help them solve the murder, so he told them all his theories about how it happened.
     
    My gut feeling - big mistake. Tell them only what you know, nothing more.

    Replies: @Paul Mendez

    My gut feeling – big mistake. Tell them only what you know, nothing more

    Getting the suspect to speculate about the crime is a key part of the Reid Technique.

    The interrogator will ask things like, “What do you think happened?” or “If you were the killer, how would you have gotten into her house?” or “Why do you think we didn’t find her house key?”

    If your speculations match the facts too closely, you go to the top of the suspect list.

  125. @Chris Mallory
    @Almost Missouri

    You are not going to talk yourself out of criminal charges. Lawyer up, then shut up. Talking to the cops only benefits the cops, never the person they are questioning.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    That assumes one is guilty. Assume one is innocent.

    Further, if someone close to me has been harmed, I want the police to conduct a successful investigation. I don’t want them ignoring other leads and suspecting me because I precipitously lawyered up.

  126. @Art Deco
    @AndrewR

    No, they're not. Investigation and patrol are distinct functions from making motions in court. Prosecutors do not commonly interrogate witnesses or suspects and commonly have no aptitude for it. They contribute no sweat to actual order maintenance. They are lawyers and not a few are ICNBW narcissists.

    Replies: @David In TN

    “They are lawyers and not a few are ICNBW narcissists.”

    The Rittenhouse prosecutors fit the description. Some people think they weren’t seriously trying to win, but they would have been proclaimed heroes by the MSM if they had,

  127. @Colin Wright
    @Old Prude

    'I know of a woman who claims she was raped 32 times. She either encountered a regiment of the Red Army, or attended NBA spring training.'

    I would assume that women who have actually been raped don't talk about it that much.

    People are like animals; if they're badly hurt they keep quiet and hope nobody notices. As a rule, nobody talks about anything really bad that happened to them; not casually.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    Out of respect for their privacy, I’ll keep the details vague, but I am close to survivors of rape, sexual assault, etc. Can confirm that it isn’t a subject that is discussed casually… sadly, what tends to happen is that the women blame themselves for not doing “XYZ”, because it’s their way of coping and asserting some degree of retrospective control. The reason is because if they are feeling that they had some degree of control over the situation, that if it do something or don’t do something in the future, it won’t happen again. It’s really bad for their mental health long-term, of course, because they end up blaming themselves. But men can get this wrong: it’s a defense mechanism, deep down, rather than self-pity or drama. It’s not hard to see why they really struggle to embrace what needs to be embraced if they are to not blame themselves and ultimately heal.

    There are other little give-aways, depending on the circumstances. Like, say, the woman tends to not want to be alone around young men of a given ethnic group unless a male she trusts is with her. But tellingly, it’s just men below a certain age without families: she’s OK around old people, kids, other women, etc from that group.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @nebulafox

    '...what tends to happen is that the women blame themselves for not doing “XYZ”, because it’s their way of coping and asserting some degree of retrospective control...'

    It's also just common sense. No, I'm not going to remake the world to my liking...so what can I do so that this doesn't happen again?

    Let us suppose I am beaten up by the Oregon Highway Patrol. Okay, I could make it my life's mission to reform the Oregon Highway Patrol -- but let's suppose I just want to get on with my life.

    Then the practical question becomes, 'what can I do to keep this from happening again?' Of course I want to keep my self-respect, etc -- but isn't the sane approach to look again at what I do that leads them to pull me over, what I do that leads them to drag me out of my car, etc?

    Replies: @Wielgus, @nebulafox

  128. @AndrewR
    tldr: all cops are bastards.

    The neo-left, for all their many, many flaws, got this one right a long time ago. Most contards will never learn.

    Replies: @Adept, @Art Deco, @JR Ewing, @RonaldReagansLoveChildWithMadonna2, @interesting

    You’ve never meet any cops.

    My X-wife was a school teacher and teachers marry cops and firemen. so every holiday party we attended was full of cops and firemen.

    The cops were cool down to earth folks but the firemen, who spent almost all day every day winding hoses and training (their words sport, not mine, so don’t get all triggered) were pretentious assholes who thought their shit didn’t stink. If they weren’t winding hoses or training they were working out all day.

    Most calls for the firemen were traffic accidents…..no bullet dodging or perp chasing in their daily routine.

    And they used to have a benefit softball game to raise money for charity (do you do that?) and they called it “guns & hoses”

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @interesting

    'You’ve never meet any cops...'

    I've met cops. The difficulty would be the circumstances.

    Cops can be okay. They can also be insufferable dicks. I think the fundamental problem is the power relationship...

    Replies: @Wielgus

  129. @Jack D
    @Paleo Liberal

    There is no such thing as a friendly chat with Federal agents. These people are not your friends. I don't know what Stewart's lawyers were thinking. The best advice is never talk to a Federal agent (or a local one either). You are not going to "clear up a misunderstanding".

    I was surprised when the Rittenhouse prosecutor tried to introduce his silence before the jury (for which he was rightly slapped down by the judge). I was also surprised when the prosecutors cast negative aspersions on the Laundrie family (Petito case) and the Crumbley (Michigan school shooter) family when they "failed to cooperate with the police". You have no duty or obligation to cooperate with the police. You can't harbor a fugitive or destroy evidence but you don't have to tell the cops anything. Prosecutors like it when you speak with them and they trick you into incriminating yourself but, even if you are guilty, you have no obligation to make their job easier.

    Replies: @anon, @Paperback Writer

    I was surprised when the Rittenhouse prosecutor tried to introduce his silence before the jury (for which he was rightly slapped down by the judge).

    Confused about that. Not about the 5A issue but about Rittenhouse in particular. He *did* speak to the police.

    https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/wisconsin/2020/10/30/details-rittenhouse-arrest-after-kenosha-shooting-shown-records/6092483002/

    While waiting for medical help, Rittenhouse stated: “I shot two white kids.”

  130. @Ben tillman
    @Wilkey

    Yeah, it worked great for George Zimmerman — at least till a political prosecution was started. Talked to the cops for hours; they found his story convincing, and that was it until the media stirred up a Lynch mob.

    Replies: @Hangnail Hans, @Art Deco

    Jerilyn Merritt said that the conduct of the trial prosecutor was unprofessional to a degree she’d not seen in nearly 40 years of practicing criminal defense law.

    What the police had was (1) a recording of his conversation with the non-emergency dispatcher, (2) maps of the complex, (3) crime scene photographs (including one which showed where he’d dropped his key chain), (4) photographs taken just after the assault by members of the public, photos which showed him covered in blood, (5) eyewitness statements from two members of the public who were right there when Martin was beating on him (not the pseudo-eyewitnesses that the prosecutor put on the stand, people who saw nothing), and (6) the autopsy report which included an estimate of the distance between Zimmerman’s pistol and Martin’s chest when it was fired and demonstrated what the bullet trajectory was. They weren’t able to account for every minute in the timeline, but there was only one modest lacuna. Liberals who talk about this case (including Jonathan Turley, who should know better) pretend for effect that there was no evidence of the sequence of events bar Zimmerman’s account memorialized in police reports. Others chatter about ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws even though it was never invoked in his defense because he had no option to retreat. The local prosecutor had ample reason to decline to proceed with the case. The trial was a tremendous waste of everyone’s resources.

  131. @James Braxton
    @Wilkey

    Where do you get the "almost certainly" stuff?

    I think this case is an example of Hollywood propaganda distorting reality.

    The Misskelley kid confessed and implicated the others twice. Once with his lawyer in the room.

    Championing this case was just an opportunity for celebrities to virtue signal and earn points by saying "rednecks bad."

    Replies: @Getaclue

    I saw some video of the Trial — one of them was a really weird “Goth” type and he acted like a psycho during the trial — sure that didn’t help much…it was believable he could do whatever given the performance I saw….

  132. @nebulafox
    @Colin Wright

    Out of respect for their privacy, I'll keep the details vague, but I am close to survivors of rape, sexual assault, etc. Can confirm that it isn't a subject that is discussed casually... sadly, what tends to happen is that the women blame themselves for not doing "XYZ", because it's their way of coping and asserting some degree of retrospective control. The reason is because if they are feeling that they had some degree of control over the situation, that if it do something or don't do something in the future, it won't happen again. It's really bad for their mental health long-term, of course, because they end up blaming themselves. But men can get this wrong: it's a defense mechanism, deep down, rather than self-pity or drama. It's not hard to see why they really struggle to embrace what needs to be embraced if they are to not blame themselves and ultimately heal.

    There are other little give-aways, depending on the circumstances. Like, say, the woman tends to not want to be alone around young men of a given ethnic group unless a male she trusts is with her. But tellingly, it's just men below a certain age without families: she's OK around old people, kids, other women, etc from that group.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘…what tends to happen is that the women blame themselves for not doing “XYZ”, because it’s their way of coping and asserting some degree of retrospective control…’

    It’s also just common sense. No, I’m not going to remake the world to my liking…so what can I do so that this doesn’t happen again?

    Let us suppose I am beaten up by the Oregon Highway Patrol. Okay, I could make it my life’s mission to reform the Oregon Highway Patrol — but let’s suppose I just want to get on with my life.

    Then the practical question becomes, ‘what can I do to keep this from happening again?’ Of course I want to keep my self-respect, etc — but isn’t the sane approach to look again at what I do that leads them to pull me over, what I do that leads them to drag me out of my car, etc?

    • Replies: @Wielgus
    @Colin Wright

    Many years ago I read of an American who campaigned for reform of the local police. His life became so unbearable that he ended up becoming one of Sweden's more exotic refugees.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    , @nebulafox
    @Colin Wright

    It is. But the end result is that the survivor blames herself rather than accepting that beyond a certain point, there's little she could have realistically done to fend off someone biologically stronger than her. It's paradoxical, but that's the way she stops beating herself up for what happened.

    Now, I obviously don't believe that "tell rapists not to rape" is a solution. Rapists are, statistically speaking, usually serial offenders, and heavily psychopathic. They are unlikely to give a damn. And the world is what it is: you do your daughter far more of a favor by teaching her how to shoot, stab, and not to go scantily clad in an alleyway at night than by pretending there are no risks. All the same, though, I think a key litmus test to how civilized your culture is how safe women can feel going about their daily lives. If they can't, you are failing. Women in Tokyo don't have to worry about their safety if they are drunk one night. Why can't we be like that, too? No duh: Japanese criminal law deals very harshly with such people, and they can expect to get caught. Not so here.

    (Also, on the other side of the gender ledger, you can't just marinate men in a system that punishes and berates them for doing anything unapproved from authority, where just punching someone in the face can result in years of jail time or at least thousands of dollars in litigation, and then blame them when they don't take action against criminals in real life. You get what you sow.)

  133. @interesting
    @AndrewR

    You've never meet any cops.

    My X-wife was a school teacher and teachers marry cops and firemen. so every holiday party we attended was full of cops and firemen.

    The cops were cool down to earth folks but the firemen, who spent almost all day every day winding hoses and training (their words sport, not mine, so don't get all triggered) were pretentious assholes who thought their shit didn't stink. If they weren't winding hoses or training they were working out all day.

    Most calls for the firemen were traffic accidents.....no bullet dodging or perp chasing in their daily routine.

    And they used to have a benefit softball game to raise money for charity (do you do that?) and they called it "guns & hoses"

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘You’ve never meet any cops…’

    I’ve met cops. The difficulty would be the circumstances.

    Cops can be okay. They can also be insufferable dicks. I think the fundamental problem is the power relationship…

    • Replies: @Wielgus
    @Colin Wright

    Power relationship. Well, I read that in India it is not a good idea for a woman to go to a police station unaccompanied by a male, as the police might detain her on some pretext, put her in a cell and then all the police pile in for a quick gang rape. No doubt similar abuses happen all over the world.
    A similar incident in Elbistan, Turkey in 1995 caused people to riot, and the police had to be transferred. Of course the police complained about "terrorists" causing problems...

  134. @Colin Wright
    @nebulafox

    '...what tends to happen is that the women blame themselves for not doing “XYZ”, because it’s their way of coping and asserting some degree of retrospective control...'

    It's also just common sense. No, I'm not going to remake the world to my liking...so what can I do so that this doesn't happen again?

    Let us suppose I am beaten up by the Oregon Highway Patrol. Okay, I could make it my life's mission to reform the Oregon Highway Patrol -- but let's suppose I just want to get on with my life.

    Then the practical question becomes, 'what can I do to keep this from happening again?' Of course I want to keep my self-respect, etc -- but isn't the sane approach to look again at what I do that leads them to pull me over, what I do that leads them to drag me out of my car, etc?

    Replies: @Wielgus, @nebulafox

    Many years ago I read of an American who campaigned for reform of the local police. His life became so unbearable that he ended up becoming one of Sweden’s more exotic refugees.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Wielgus

    'Many years ago I read of an American who campaigned for reform of the local police. His life became so unbearable that he ended up becoming one of Sweden’s more exotic refugees.'

    Surely just moving to the next state would have sufficed.

    However, yeah. If you are going to die on a hill, at least be aware that is the likely outcome.

    Replies: @Wielgus

  135. @anonymous
    Now the FBI comes off looking like garbage even in its normal work of solving crimes.

    To help build a case against Ray, Foltz sought help from the FBI.

    The Bureau sent one of its top criminal profilers — Mark Safarik.

    He had literally co-authored the "Bible" of criminal profiling.
     

    In movies like Silence of the Lambs, they make profiling look like a legitimate science.

    Unfortunately, in real life, it's mostly bullsh**.

    Safarik made up a "profile of the killer" that conveniently matched every detail about Ray.
     

    Replies: @Old Prude, @Skyler the Weird

    Remember when the profilers in the D.C. beltway sniper case unequivocally said the suspect had to be a White Guy in a White Van?

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @Skyler the Weird

    That was after one of the shootings near a Home Depot. Witnesses reported seeing such a vehicle. I remember thinking at the time, there’s nothing in Home Depot parking lots BUT white guys in white vans. Nowadays it would be Mexicans in white vans.

  136. Every Special Prosecutor case from Watergate to Russia Russia Russia has been a perjury hunt. No one is ever prosecuted for leaking Valerie Plame as a Spook, the get tried for some misstatement.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Skyler the Weird

    To a great extent, that's true. They were convicted of process crimes or (like Oliver North, initially) in re side issues. (Recall Lewis Libby was convicted of 'perjury' because his recollection of things differed from two other witnesses, whose recollections differed from each other. The issue - who told Libby what when - was not important).

    The Watergate trial was a partial exception inasmuch as the four main defendants were convicted consequent to their efforts in 1972 and 1973 at preventing responsibility for the original burglary being traced to higher-ups, not consequent to their own meetings with law enforcement or prosecutors.

    If I'm not mistaken, the original set of convictions secured against Whitewater defendants was for substantive offenses.

  137. @Skyler the Weird
    @anonymous

    Remember when the profilers in the D.C. beltway sniper case unequivocally said the suspect had to be a White Guy in a White Van?

    Replies: @JMcG

    That was after one of the shootings near a Home Depot. Witnesses reported seeing such a vehicle. I remember thinking at the time, there’s nothing in Home Depot parking lots BUT white guys in white vans. Nowadays it would be Mexicans in white vans.

  138. @Wielgus
    @Colin Wright

    Many years ago I read of an American who campaigned for reform of the local police. His life became so unbearable that he ended up becoming one of Sweden's more exotic refugees.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘Many years ago I read of an American who campaigned for reform of the local police. His life became so unbearable that he ended up becoming one of Sweden’s more exotic refugees.’

    Surely just moving to the next state would have sufficed.

    However, yeah. If you are going to die on a hill, at least be aware that is the likely outcome.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
    @Colin Wright

    It seems quite a few police forces joined the vendetta. Also the USA's propaganda is fairly powerful - it tells its citizens and indeed foreigners that it is the land of freedom and it can take a while to discover that this is not really so. The guy seemed to be a naive liberal, not the Weather Underground.

  139. @Colin Wright
    @nebulafox

    '...what tends to happen is that the women blame themselves for not doing “XYZ”, because it’s their way of coping and asserting some degree of retrospective control...'

    It's also just common sense. No, I'm not going to remake the world to my liking...so what can I do so that this doesn't happen again?

    Let us suppose I am beaten up by the Oregon Highway Patrol. Okay, I could make it my life's mission to reform the Oregon Highway Patrol -- but let's suppose I just want to get on with my life.

    Then the practical question becomes, 'what can I do to keep this from happening again?' Of course I want to keep my self-respect, etc -- but isn't the sane approach to look again at what I do that leads them to pull me over, what I do that leads them to drag me out of my car, etc?

    Replies: @Wielgus, @nebulafox

    It is. But the end result is that the survivor blames herself rather than accepting that beyond a certain point, there’s little she could have realistically done to fend off someone biologically stronger than her. It’s paradoxical, but that’s the way she stops beating herself up for what happened.

    Now, I obviously don’t believe that “tell rapists not to rape” is a solution. Rapists are, statistically speaking, usually serial offenders, and heavily psychopathic. They are unlikely to give a damn. And the world is what it is: you do your daughter far more of a favor by teaching her how to shoot, stab, and not to go scantily clad in an alleyway at night than by pretending there are no risks. All the same, though, I think a key litmus test to how civilized your culture is how safe women can feel going about their daily lives. If they can’t, you are failing. Women in Tokyo don’t have to worry about their safety if they are drunk one night. Why can’t we be like that, too? No duh: Japanese criminal law deals very harshly with such people, and they can expect to get caught. Not so here.

    (Also, on the other side of the gender ledger, you can’t just marinate men in a system that punishes and berates them for doing anything unapproved from authority, where just punching someone in the face can result in years of jail time or at least thousands of dollars in litigation, and then blame them when they don’t take action against criminals in real life. You get what you sow.)

  140. @Colin Wright
    @Wielgus

    'Many years ago I read of an American who campaigned for reform of the local police. His life became so unbearable that he ended up becoming one of Sweden’s more exotic refugees.'

    Surely just moving to the next state would have sufficed.

    However, yeah. If you are going to die on a hill, at least be aware that is the likely outcome.

    Replies: @Wielgus

    It seems quite a few police forces joined the vendetta. Also the USA’s propaganda is fairly powerful – it tells its citizens and indeed foreigners that it is the land of freedom and it can take a while to discover that this is not really so. The guy seemed to be a naive liberal, not the Weather Underground.

  141. @Colin Wright
    @interesting

    'You’ve never meet any cops...'

    I've met cops. The difficulty would be the circumstances.

    Cops can be okay. They can also be insufferable dicks. I think the fundamental problem is the power relationship...

    Replies: @Wielgus

    Power relationship. Well, I read that in India it is not a good idea for a woman to go to a police station unaccompanied by a male, as the police might detain her on some pretext, put her in a cell and then all the police pile in for a quick gang rape. No doubt similar abuses happen all over the world.
    A similar incident in Elbistan, Turkey in 1995 caused people to riot, and the police had to be transferred. Of course the police complained about “terrorists” causing problems…

  142. @Skyler the Weird
    Every Special Prosecutor case from Watergate to Russia Russia Russia has been a perjury hunt. No one is ever prosecuted for leaking Valerie Plame as a Spook, the get tried for some misstatement.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    To a great extent, that’s true. They were convicted of process crimes or (like Oliver North, initially) in re side issues. (Recall Lewis Libby was convicted of ‘perjury’ because his recollection of things differed from two other witnesses, whose recollections differed from each other. The issue – who told Libby what when – was not important).

    The Watergate trial was a partial exception inasmuch as the four main defendants were convicted consequent to their efforts in 1972 and 1973 at preventing responsibility for the original burglary being traced to higher-ups, not consequent to their own meetings with law enforcement or prosecutors.

    If I’m not mistaken, the original set of convictions secured against Whitewater defendants was for substantive offenses.

  143. @Truth
    @Lurker

    Almost certainly?

    WHY DIDN'T THEY CONVICT HIS BLAQ AZZ!?!?!

    Replies: @Lurker

    WHY DIDN’T THEY CONVICT HIS BLAQ AZZ!?!?!

    They did.

    I wrote ‘almost certainly’ because I’m not in the Italian police, was not a witness, never been to Italy. Thus I’m equivocating by conceding the technical possibility he didn’t do it.

    From what I remember the case against Knox and the Italian guy looked very shaky from the start. Seems amazing that it even went to court.

  144. @Kratoklastes
    @Sean

    The Norfolk 4 (full title: the Norfolk 7 plus a black guy they met in the parking lot and invited to join the rape/murder) tells everyone, everything they need to know about co-operation with the piggies.

    If you do co-operate, there is a non-zero probability that some fuckwit convinces himself that you're involved, and keeps you up all night badgering you until you confess. (And if you're a person within σ of median IQ, you will probably 'confess' eventually: hypnotic suggestion is a thing).

    It took me quite a while to be convinced about the prevalence of false confession: I'm now absolutely convinced that confessions should not be admissible as evidence, unless as a video recording of the entire period during which the confession was obtained.

    A person on median intelligence cannot rely on their 'guess' that they would not eventually buckle under the stress of a professional - or even semi-professional, piggie-type - interrogator who is allowed to lie.

    Replies: @Paul Mendez, @Gabe Ruth

    Read most of the article you linked, and was wondering about the race of these people. Before looking, I guessed that they were black, for a few reasons: “Danial” (lol), implied lack of intelligence, and the residual influence of the propaganda that the whole legal system has it in for blacks and do this kind of shit to them because of racism.

    Guess I’m not cynical enough yet. Should have known since I’d never heard of these guys, though of course I know all about the Central Park guys.

    I’ve been justice-system pilled for a while, but the level of depravity is just hard for me to understand. Wild West is looking better every day.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Becker update V1.3.2
How America was neoconned into World War IV