The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Bias or Bayesianism?
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

Having watched some true crime shows recently, I’m reminded that murders tend to be harder than most other crimes to solve, precisely because the best witness, the victim, is dead. It sees like it would be pretty easy to get worked up over one theory of a murder and try to railroad a suspect.

Also, people who go into criminal justice don’t tend to be brilliant. I suspect that, say, the National Transportation Safety Board investigators and consultants tend to be smarter in raw IQ terms than their law enforcement counterparts.

Moreover, a large fraction of homicides are never “cleared,” often because surviving witnesses are terrified of the murderers or are criminals themselves or generally hate the police.

From Science:

THE BIAS HUNTER

Itiel Dror is determined to reveal the role of bias in forensics, even if it sparks outrage
12 MAY 2022

BY DOUGLAS STARR

A version of this story appeared in Science, Vol 376, Issue 6594.

In February 2021, cognitive psychologist Itiel Dror set off a firestorm in the forensics community. In a paper, he suggested forensic pathologists were more likely to pronounce a child’s death a murder versus an accident if the victim was Black and brought to the hospital by the mother’s boyfriend than if they were white and brought in by the grandmother. It was the latest of Dror’s many experiments suggesting forensic scientists are subconsciously influenced by cognitive biases—biases that can put innocent people in jail.

Or maybe they are Bayesians?

Dror, a researcher at University College London (UCL), has spent decades using real-world cases and data to show how experts in fields as diverse as hospital care and aviation can reverse themselves when presented with the same evidence in different contexts. But his most public work has involved forensic science, a field reckoning with a history of unscientific methods. In 2009, the National Research Council published a groundbreaking report that most forensic sciences—including the analysis of bullets, hair, bite marks, and even fingerprints—are based more on tradition than on quantifiable science. Since then, hundreds of studies and legal cases have revealed flaws in forensic sciences.

Dror’s work forms a connective tissue among them. He has shown that most problems with forensics do not originate with “bad apple” technicians who have infiltrated crime labs. Rather they come from the same kind of subconscious bias that affects everyone’s daily decisions—the shortcuts and generalizations our brains rely on to process reality. “We don’t actually see the environment,” Dror says. “We perceive stimuli from the environment that our brain represents to us,” shaped by feelings and past experience.

… Dror now travels the world testifying in trials, taking part in commissions, and offering training to police departments, forensic laboratories, judges, militaries, corporations, government agencies, and hospitals. National agencies, forensic labs, and police forces have adopted his approach to shielding experts from information that could bias them.

… Dror’s previous studies on bias in forensics caused grumbling, but nothing like the reaction to the 2021 paper. This time, he used a survey to see whether bias could affect decision-making among medical examiners. He concluded that nonmedical evidence such as the race of the decedent or their relation to the caregiver—details that most medical examiners routinely consider—were actually a source of bias.

Eighty-five of the country’s most prominent pathologists demanded its retraction. The National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) alleged ethical misconduct and demanded that Dror’s employer, UCL, stop his research. The editor of the Journal of Forensic Sciences wrote that he hadn’t seen so many arguments in the journal’s 65-year history, or so much anger. After decades challenging forensic experts, Dror had gotten into a fight that threatened his career.

… He speaks with a mixture of accents and intonations from his upbringing in Israel, his graduate work in the United States, and his professional life in the United Kingdom.

… They found five fingerprint experts who knew about the Mayfield case but had not seen the fingerprints. Dror and Charlton sent each expert a pair of prints from one of the expert’s own previous cases, which they had personally verified as “matched,” but told them the prints came from the notorious case of FBI’s mismatch of Mayfield’s prints with the terrorist’s.

In other words, Prof. Dror lied. Criminal examiners should be on the lookout for lies, but they probably don’t expect them from other academics.

Four of the five experts contradicted their previous decision: Three now concluded the pair was a mismatch, and one felt he needed more information. They seemed to have been influenced by the passage of time and extraneous information.

“It was so simple and elegant,” Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project, says of the study. “And when people in the forensic community read it, they got it.”

… Dror looked at other biasing factors in fingerprint analysis, some of which were shockingly innocuous. When police retrieve a print from a crime scene, they consult an FBI computer database containing millions of fingerprints and receive several possible matches, in order of the most likely possibilities. Dror found that experts were likely to pick “matches” near the top of the list even after he had scrambled their order, perhaps because of the subconscious tendency to overly trust computer technology. …

Dror and his colleagues are quick to point out that bias does not always equal prejudice, but it can foster injustice. Studies have shown, for example, that Black schoolchildren get punished more readily than white children for the same misbehavior, because many teachers subconsciously assume Black children will continue to misbehave. And in forensic science, bias can subconsciously influence experts to interpret data in a way that incriminates a suspect. …

A GLOSSARY OF BIAS
Itiel Dror and his collaborators have coined various terms to describe how bias sneaks into forensic analysis—and how experts perceive and react to their biases.

TARGET-DRIVEN BIAS Subconsciously working backward from a suspect to crime scene evidence, and thus fitting the evidence to the suspect—akin to shooting an arrow at a target and drawing a bull’s-eye around where it hits

I can recall hearing a rumor about a scientist who sounded suspicious in the then unsolved 2001 anthrax case. I looked into his past and talked myself into believing he should be considered a suspect. But, fortunately. before hitting “Publish” I ran through the evidence I had assembled one more time, but from a skeptical perspective. I suddenly realized I didn’t have anything.

CONFIRMATION BIAS Focusing on one suspect and highlighting the evidence that supports their guilt, while ignoring or dismissing evidence to the contrary

BIAS CASCADE When bias spills from one part of the investigation to another, such as when the same person who collects evidence from a crime scene later does the laboratory analysis and is influenced by the emotional impact of the crime scene

I suspect this is more of a problem in small towns that can’t afford as much division of labor in crime investigations.

BIAS SNOWBALL A kind of echo chamber effect in which bias gets amplified because those who become biased then bias others, and so on

BIAS BLIND SPOT The belief that although other experts are subject to bias, you certainly are not

EXPERT IMMUNITY The belief that being an expert makes a person objective and unaffected by bias

ILLUSION OF CONTROL The belief that when an expert is aware of bias, they can overcome it by a sheer act of will

BAD APPLES The belief that bias is a matter of incompetence or bad character

TECHNOLOGICAL PROTECTION The belief that the use of technology, such as computerized fingerprint matching or artificial intelligence, guards against bias

Dror says the best approach to fighting bias is to shield experts from extraneous information, similar to the “blinding” in scientific experiments. He calls the process Linear Sequential Unmasking, in which the analyst only sees the evidence that’s directly relevant to their task. Some authorities have endorsed the approach. The United Kingdom’s Forensic Science Regulator recommends it as “the most powerful means of safeguarding against the introduction of contextual bias.” FBI adopted the process following the Mayfield case: Because humans tend to see similarities between objects viewed side by side, agents now document the features of a crime scene fingerprint on its own before comparing it to a suspect’s prints.

After consultation with Dror, police in the Netherlands began to blind fingerprint examiners to details of a crime investigation that might influence their analysis, such as the condition of the body or the urgency of the case, says John Riemen, the police force’s lead biometrics specialist. The approach ensures “you’re looking at fingerprints, and not at your biases,” he says.

Sounds reasonable. But it also sounds like it would slow down investigations, especially in less densely populated countries than the Netherlands.

This is like the now common recommendation for researchers that they publicly register their hypotheses before collecting their data so that they don’t p-hack their way to statistical significance. There is much to be said for that, but I usually don’t do it, in large part because I usually come up with much better hypotheses after looking at the data. Why? Because knowledge is good.

Similarly, when it comes to murder investigations, a major question is whether America has a bigger problem with convicting innocent men of murder or with failing to bring murderers to justice. It’s widely assumed that because so many black men are convicted of murder compared to white men that that must prove that lots of innocent black men are being wrongly convicted of crimes committed by white men.

But the L.A. Times’ murder reporter Jill Leovy memorably argued that the bigger problem is the criminal justice system failing to arrest anybody for a very large fraction of murders.

IT WAS AN ATTEMPT to win medical examiners over to this approach that landed Dror in hot water. In 2019, he got a message from Daniel Atherton, a pathologist at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, who wanted him to look at some data he had collected. Atherton had sent a survey to 713 pathologists across the country positing one of two scenarios in which a toddler with a skull fracture and brain hemorrhage was brought to an emergency room and died shortly thereafter. In one scenario, the child was white and was brought in by the grandmother. In the other, the child was Black and brought in by the mother’s boyfriend. The survey asked participants to decide whether the manner of death was undetermined, accidental, or homicide.

Dror analyzed the results and found that of the 133 people who answered the survey, 32 concluded the death was a homicide. And a disproportionate number of those—23—had received the scenario with the Black child and the boyfriend. Participants reading the “Black condition” were five times more likely to conclude homicide than accident, whereas participants in the “White condition” ruled accident more than twice as frequently as homicide.

“Their decisions were noticeably affected by medically irrelevant contextual information,” Dror, Atherton, and their colleagues wrote in their paper, published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences.

The paper also included a survey of 10 years of Nevada death certificates showing an apparent correlation between Black deaths and findings of homicide versus accident—influenced, perhaps, by cultural biases. “I just wanted to get that information out there to begin a discussion,” Dror says of the study.

He got more of a discussion than he expected. The journal was swamped with angry letters from medical examiners. One derided the study as “rank pseudoscience.” Another, signed by the president of NAME along with 84 other pathologists, excoriated the study as “fatally flawed” and “an abject failure of the peer review process,” and demanded its retraction. (Michael Peat, editor of the journal, declined to retract the article, saying it had been peer reviewed before publication and rereviewed by a respected biostatistician following the complaints.)

Many pathologists pointed out that the experimental design linked two unrelated variables—the race of the child and their relationship to the caretaker. They were further inflamed by Dror’s labeling the scenarios “Black condition” and “White condition,” when they had reason to suspect that the caretaker, not the race, was the relevant variable. Statistics show a boyfriend of any race is far more likely to harm a child in his care than a grandmother.

Statistics, on the other hand, don’t say anything about the race of homicide perps, apparently.

“To introduce race … appears to be an effort to label the survey responders, and their colleagues by proxy, as racist,” said the letter from the 85 practitioners. “Had this survey been done with the races reversed … White cases were more likely to be called homicide and Black cases more likely to be called accident.” They contended that Dror was using inflammatory language to get headlines. And they noted that other factors could have played a role in the pathologists’ decisions, such as their level of experience, local crime statistics, and office policies, none of which Dror had considered.

Stephen Soumerai, an expert in research design at Harvard Medical School, agrees that linking a known risk factor for homicide (caregiver relationship) to a nonwhite race is problematic. And the survey of Nevada death certificates failed to investigate other possible explanations beyond race, he says. “The hypothesis is reasonable and important, but the research does not adhere to basic principles of research design,” he says.

Dror admits he would have been wise to use neutral terms to designate the two experimental groups. But he doesn’t concede that the study is flawed. “It is a first study to examine and establish that there is bias in forensic pathology,” he says. Dror agrees that statistics do show an unrelated caretaker is more likely to harm a child than a grandmother. But such generalizations should not affect how examiners diagnose individual cases.

It’s a general problem in any kind of decision-making. In the real world, white grandmothers are likely about two to three orders of magnitude less likely to murder a child than a black boyfriend. That’s a pretty good reason not to waste much investigative resources on white grandmothers. On the other hand, it’s not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the black boyfriend’s guilt. But where does the examiner fit into the chain of decision making? How important is it for him to not shut off an investigation into what could be a homicide vs. how important is to not take a step toward putting what could be an innocent man on trial?

… The question of bias in autopsies rocketed to the headlines after Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd on 25 May 2020. During the trial in April 2021, the local medical examiner for Hennepin County in Minnesota testified that the manner of death was “homicide,” as did other pathologists. But an expert hired by Chauvin’s defense team, former Maryland Chief Medical Examiner David Fowler, testified that Floyd had so many underlying health challenges that the manner of death was “undetermined.”

Chauvin was found guilty, but Fowler’s testimony outraged other pathologists and physicians, who saw in his conclusions a pro-police bias.

In contrast, there couldn’t be any bias against the Great White Defendant as proven by how the entire American Establishment didn’t suddenly throw a fit over the story and egg on 500+ Mostly Peaceful Protests and boost the murder and car fatality rates. And trying to ruin the career of an expert witness testifying for the defendant will of course keep the prosecution from framing innocent men in the future by unspecified mechanisms.

More than 400 of them signed a petition to Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh demanding an investigation into all the death-in-police-custody cases during Fowler’s 17 years in office. Frosh recruited seven international experts to design the study, including Dror. And despite all the blowback Dror has received for trespassing in the field of forensic pathology, he agreed to participate.

“If my work results even in one person not getting wrongly convicted, or one guilty person not going free, then it’s worth all the grief I’ve been getting,” he says. “And maybe not just one person. Hopefully this is going to change the domain.”

It seems like there are trade-offs rather than just absolutes.. The old American legal saying is that better that 9 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted. And there are also costs to society in general, such as more murders, in not clearing cases, as reporter Jill Leovy documented in her 2015 book Ghettoside.

 
Hide 81 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. We are still living in a world where, if you are serious about killing someone, you can do it and get away with it: and in fact, after the long trend of apparent success eliminating serial killers (a bad metric for several reasons), the Soros prosecutors’ program of Break-The-Windows is surely making this worse. In one of the videos of the BLM riots — this one was in Minnesota at night, a crowd of people charging through a park — a car pulls up to the sidewalk and multiple sets of arms reach out and grab a woman. The car speeds off. Is she dead? Is she a rape toy in a basement? Was it just her protective brothers getting her out of a reckless situation? No one will ever know, and, despite being filmed, no investigator can really do anything.
    We have the technology and skills to all but eliminate murder, and our psychopathic elite chose to restore chaos.

    • Agree: Nicholas Stix
    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @J.Ross

    " ... our psychopathic elite chose to restore chaos."

    With chaos comes a new order.

  2. It is telling that two of the three details (race and relationship) of the caregiver were brought up but gender was ignored. I would think that there could also be a difference if it were the grandfather or the girlfriend who brought in the child.

    • Agree: Hypnotoad666
    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    @Zpaladin

    The issue is whether the goal of medical examiners is to be CORRECT, in which case extrinsic evidence is very valuable. Or are they supposed to be ISOLATED on only certain evidence.

    I honestly don't know what their role is supposed to be. If you need their ruling to proceed with an investigation then correct is better. But when testifying as to guilt or innocence, you'd want them to be isolated on the medical evidence alone.

  3. You should look up the Kent Heitholt case. Michael Boyd is getting away with a gruesome murder.

    Good call on the NTSB. They’ve really done great job with air safety. Always good to hear them interviewed on the show Air Disasters.

    • Agree: Kylie
  4. In good news for white people the Dallas Mavericks stomped the Phoenix Suns in Game 7 in Phoenix. The comments in the NBA youtube highlight video are hilarious. Lots of references to Chris Paul Point God. One guy itemized the list of all the NBA playoff series Paul’s team has been up 2-0 and lost. There is something like 8 of them.

    The Slovenian guy was amazing.

    • Replies: @Charon
    @Emil Nikola Richard


    In good news for white people the Dallas Mavericks stomped the Phoenix Suns
     
    Ultimate pathetic sports cope.

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Alden
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Are you White? I’ll be polite and not make my usual comment about the church of black sports. And the White men who worship at that church . And who subscribe to the cable channels whose advertising revenues pay the teams and black players.

    Even if there’s an E European who beat a black team.

    , @Odyssey
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Luka Doncic is actually a Serbian (so as Jokic), originally from Serbian province - Kosovo. His parents moved to Slovenia while all these were Yugoslavia.

  5. Also, people who go into criminal justice don’t tend to be brilliant.

    Or necessarily law-abiding. Back in the ’70s, it was claimed that 90% of the infractions at SUNY Canton came from the 50% of students majoring in criminal justice.

    • LOL: Hibernian
  6. Blatant case of junk pseudoscience. If Dror was an honest researcher he would have introduced only one variable and the experiment would have consisted of ;
    one scenario, the child was White and was brought in by their grandmother
    and the other, the child was Black and was brought in by their grandmother.
    He introduced a second variable in addition to race, the relationship of the child to the person who brought them in knowing that statistically a boyfriend will be more likely to have harmed the child than a grandmother. Dror consciously manipulated the study to skew towards the outcome he wanted.

    • Agree: J.Ross, Paul Jolliffe, Gordo
    • Replies: @Charon
    @Alfa158

    Welcome to Modern Science.

    , @Jonathan Mason
    @Alfa158


    He introduced a second variable in addition to race, the relationship of the child to the person who brought them in knowing that statistically a boyfriend will be more likely to have harmed the child than a grandmother. Dror consciously manipulated the study to skew towards the outcome he wanted.
     
    Baloney! What the study showed was that many medical examiners are thoroughly biased by factors that are irrelevant to the case in question. Obviously some of them were prejudiced against the fictional black boyfriend, who could, for all they knew, have been the one socially responsible and concerned person in the family.

    Don't let yourself be gaslighted by pseudoscience.

    This case is actually more similar to a doctor failing to diagnose a heart attack in a 35-year-old white woman, simply because she is not a typical heart-attack victim, so he did not bother to run an EKG, and just sent her home with antacids.

    The medical examiners who complained about the study are almost certainly the same medical examiners whose reports indicated that the black boyfriend should be investigated for murder.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

  7. Why didn’t he use white boyfriend/ black grandmother scenarios too?

    Because he knew accusing people of racial bias gets more attention than suggesting people are more suspicious of boyfriends with dead children than grandmothers.

    • Agree: Gordo, kaganovitch
    • Replies: @Charon
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    I'm suspicious of the notion that boyfriends ever bring in the dead baby.

    1. Even ghetto homies ain't that stupid.

    2. Way too much like work anyway.

    Replies: @Alden, @Colin Wright

  8. We should not really be depending on whether some expert used the word “homicide”. He should be detailing what the evidence shows, and let someone else draw a legal conclusion.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Roger

    Homicide can be premeditated, intentinal but not premeditated, recless, negligent, or justifiable. Anyting except natural causes. If someone dies from a punch or a bullet, regardless of the cause, it's a homicide. How often is it a close call wheether or not a death is from natural causes/ it may be an accident, but that involves some degree of negligence, maybe by the victim. Negligent suicide?

  9. “To introduce race … appears to be an effort to label the survey responders, and their colleagues by proxy, as racist,”

    So the rule is: Race is the taboo. And – the hope/the wish/the expectation = at least the willingness to accept – – that blissful ignorance will spring from this rule. (The rule being a function of the neurotic defense mechanism of repression (and neglect – et. al.). – A powerful socio-psychological dynamic.)

    • Replies: @Odyssey
    @Dieter Kief

    I bet that rarely anyone knows that the ‘race’ is an ancient Serbian word. It originated and referred to the followers of the ancient goddess of agriculture Reasa (or Rasa). Slavics, before this term was invented in the 7th c.AC, called themselves ‘srb’ (serbs) what means – ‘cousin, relative, the member of the same race’. This original ancient name was preserved by modern Serbs and the word ‘race’ (rasa) was adopted in English language. It is used as an alternative name for Serbs (Rasi) so as the root for their later derivatives – Russians and Prussians. It means that the terms ‘race’ and ‘serb’ have the same meaning.

    So, your rule can be rephrased as – Serbs are the taboo…

    Anyone who remembers never seen before in history media satanisation (bigger than Russians today), before bombing them with depleted uranium in late 90ies, will agree with your rule.

    Btw, I can also bet that rarely anyone knows where the birthplace of white race is?

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @J.Ross

  10. For years, prosecutors secured convictions on the basis of finger-print evidence. Not always alone, although probably in many cases it was the decisive evidence. Is finger-prince evidence accurate? Who knows.

    https://www.aaas.org/news/fingerprint-source-identity-lacks-scientific-basis-legal-certainty

    Maybe finger-prints are unique, but perhaps not unique enough to discriminate between people, especially not when forensic examiners use short-cut methods to match them. Perhaps someday, finger-print evidence will be seen in the same light as dunking witches in water.

    Medical examiners and forensic analysts are supposed to be neutral. But they are paid by the state – the same state that pays the police and the prosecutors. The fact is, they have a side and they are on it.

    Criminal justice is probably every bit as much a delusion as democracy or any other modern fairy-tale.

    • Agree: Kratoklastes
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    @Mr. Anon

    I saw something several years ago that claimed that the fingerprint evidence sufficient to ensure conviction in the US wouldn't merit prosecution in the UK.
    Unfortunately, a fifteen second indolent search fails to bring it to the top of the screen.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Dr. DoomNGloom

  11. How deeply has Itiel Dror looked into bias in Israeli treatment of citizen and occupied Arabs?

    • Agree: Gordo
    • Thanks: Charon
    • LOL: Malcolm X-Lax
  12. “He speaks with a mixture of accents and intonations from his upbringing in Israel,”

    No further questions, Your Honor.

    • Agree: silviosilver
    • Thanks: Charon
    • LOL: AndrewR, J.Ross
  13. anon[260] • Disclaimer says:

    https://www.ae-lib.org.ua/texts-c/chandler__the_simple_art_of_murder__en.htm

    There is a very simple statement to be made about all these stories: they do not really come off intellectually as problems, and they do not come off artistically as fiction. They are too contrived, and too little aware of what goes on in the world. They try to be honest, but honesty is an art. The poor writer is dishonest without knowing it, and the fairly good one can be dishonest because he doesn’t know what to be honest about. He thinks a complicated murder scheme which baffled the lazy reader, who won’t be bothered itemizing the details, will also baffle the police, whose business is with details.

    The boys with their feet on the desks know that the easiest murder case in the world to break is the one somebody tried to get very cute with; the one that really bothers them is the murder somebody thought of only two minutes before he pulled it off. But if the writers of this fiction wrote about the kind of murders that happen, they would also have to write about the authentic flavor of life as it is lived. And since they cannot do that, they pretend that what they do is what should be done. Which is begging the question-and the best of them know it.

  14. a major question is whether America has a bigger problem with convicting innocent men of murder or with failing to bring murderers to justice.

    Given the clearance rate in, say Washington D.C. They’d have to be convicting more than one innocent person in every closed case for that to be the problem.
    It seems unlikely.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10408181/DC-homicide-clearance-reaches-lowest-level-rates-drop-50-42-percent-2021.html

    • Replies: @Coemgen
    @Bill Jones

    Washington, D.C. has 64 unsolved murders from 2016: MDC Major Case/Unsolved Homicides - 2016.

    Seth Rich's murder is currently the 41st unsolved case for the year—so, you'll need to scroll down to find the link to his open case.

    https://youtu.be/rsRjQDrDnY8

  15. @Mr. Anon
    For years, prosecutors secured convictions on the basis of finger-print evidence. Not always alone, although probably in many cases it was the decisive evidence. Is finger-prince evidence accurate? Who knows.

    https://www.aaas.org/news/fingerprint-source-identity-lacks-scientific-basis-legal-certainty

    Maybe finger-prints are unique, but perhaps not unique enough to discriminate between people, especially not when forensic examiners use short-cut methods to match them. Perhaps someday, finger-print evidence will be seen in the same light as dunking witches in water.

    Medical examiners and forensic analysts are supposed to be neutral. But they are paid by the state - the same state that pays the police and the prosecutors. The fact is, they have a side and they are on it.

    Criminal justice is probably every bit as much a delusion as democracy or any other modern fairy-tale.

    Replies: @Bill Jones

    I saw something several years ago that claimed that the fingerprint evidence sufficient to ensure conviction in the US wouldn’t merit prosecution in the UK.
    Unfortunately, a fifteen second indolent search fails to bring it to the top of the screen.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Bill Jones

    Was it this?
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec/14/fingerprint-evidence-opinion-fact

    Replies: @Bill Jones

    , @Dr. DoomNGloom
    @Bill Jones

    [blockquote]I saw something several years ago that claimed that the fingerprint evidence sufficient to ensure conviction in the US wouldn’t merit prosecution in the UK.
    Unfortunately, a fifteen second indolent search fails to bring it to the top of the screen.[/blockquote]

    Apple explicitly says facial recognition is more reliable.

  16. @Emil Nikola Richard
    In good news for white people the Dallas Mavericks stomped the Phoenix Suns in Game 7 in Phoenix. The comments in the NBA youtube highlight video are hilarious. Lots of references to Chris Paul Point God. One guy itemized the list of all the NBA playoff series Paul's team has been up 2-0 and lost. There is something like 8 of them.

    The Slovenian guy was amazing.

    Replies: @Charon, @Alden, @Odyssey

    In good news for white people the Dallas Mavericks stomped the Phoenix Suns

    Ultimate pathetic sports cope.

    • Agree: AnotherDad
    • Replies: @Anon
    @Charon

    Cucks be fuming.

  17. @Alfa158
    Blatant case of junk pseudoscience. If Dror was an honest researcher he would have introduced only one variable and the experiment would have consisted of ;
    one scenario, the child was White and was brought in by their grandmother
    and the other, the child was Black and was brought in by their grandmother.
    He introduced a second variable in addition to race, the relationship of the child to the person who brought them in knowing that statistically a boyfriend will be more likely to have harmed the child than a grandmother. Dror consciously manipulated the study to skew towards the outcome he wanted.

    Replies: @Charon, @Jonathan Mason

    Welcome to Modern Science.

  18. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Why didn’t he use white boyfriend/ black grandmother scenarios too?

    Because he knew accusing people of racial bias gets more attention than suggesting people are more suspicious of boyfriends with dead children than grandmothers.

    Replies: @Charon

    I’m suspicious of the notion that boyfriends ever bring in the dead baby.

    1. Even ghetto homies ain’t that stupid.

    2. Way too much like work anyway.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Alden
    @Charon

    There’s legal obstacles to even relatives other than parents getting medical care for kids. When mine were young and had baby sitters we gave our provider the Kaiser health system a notarized letter authorizing whatever Dr saw the kids in the ER to do any and all treatments the Dr thought was necessary, I don’t remember anyone else ever taking the kids to an ER. But it’s better for a parent to bring a kid in if possible than the ER trying to track down a parent in the days before cell phones for emergency treatment.

    Most parents have a vague idea that they and only they will have to sign something when kids are sick or injured. Even immigrants and blacks.

    , @Colin Wright
    @Charon

    'I’m suspicious of the notion that boyfriends ever bring in the dead baby.

    '1. Even ghetto homies ain’t that stupid.

    '2. Way too much like work anyway.'

    Well, I dare say I'm more virulently racist with respect to blacks than most even here. Too, I had the decided lack of good fortune go grow up around all too many blacks -- and not the usual positive selection one has at work, in middle-class neighborhoods. etc. Finally, a grown male can do some serious harm if he gets excited. Even more than he meant to. It can happen.

    So that said, I think the following observations are in order.

    1. Most ghetto blacks aren't monsters. Some are, and few really are potential success stories -- but most aren't monsters.

    2. People do things they didn't mean to.

    3. Some of them will say 'oh shit' and grab the kid and head for the ER. They may dream up some story on the way -- but they'll do the right thing.

  19. Every single time.

    You guys are right. I’m out.

  20. @Bill Jones

    a major question is whether America has a bigger problem with convicting innocent men of murder or with failing to bring murderers to justice.
     
    Given the clearance rate in, say Washington D.C. They'd have to be convicting more than one innocent person in every closed case for that to be the problem.
    It seems unlikely.


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10408181/DC-homicide-clearance-reaches-lowest-level-rates-drop-50-42-percent-2021.html

    Replies: @Coemgen

    Washington, D.C. has 64 unsolved murders from 2016: MDC Major Case/Unsolved Homicides – 2016.

    Seth Rich’s murder is currently the 41st unsolved case for the year—so, you’ll need to scroll down to find the link to his open case.

    • Thanks: J.Ross
  21. To throw out pattern-matching associations is to throw out science, basically.

    People who deal with the much smaller habitual criminal or violent subcultures learn their biases through experience.

    There is a difference between an outdated and narrow stereotype, say French people wearing striped shirts and carrying onions because the bulk of French people seen by English people were traveling Breton onion sellers prior to mass travel and media in the 19th century. And, on the other hand, all the stereotypes outlined by above that are informed by experience and theory. Those biases are through repeated confirmation.

    I would be horrified if police didn’t use heuristics since they’d be wasting astonishing amounts of time trying to deduce if Deshaun had really been killed by another young black man or a young Asian girl. Even Will Smith was able to poke fun at this in Men In Black.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Altai

    Good film that, unlike every one of its sequels.

    , @J.Ross
    @Altai

    And, at midnight, they eat all the onions!

  22. With apologies to Jack D and other Jewish commenters I knew Dror is a Jew by the third paragraph.

    When I was a probation officer a common excuse parents gave when bringing a kid to the ER was fell off a bunk bed. First thing the social workers and detectives did was go to the home and take a look at the bedrooms. If there were no bunk beds a reasonable assumption was parents relatives who ever did it. Or no stairs in the home or apartment house.

    And forensic evidence doesn’t make the whole case. There’s also other evidence. Like questioning the kid if he she’s over about 5. Even a 3 year old can state what happened. Although it’s iffy and not really viable evidence because of the kids age. And questioning the parents care takers people living in the house. Looking at medical records of the kid and siblings. Serious injuries to all the kids or an ER visit every year is indicative somethings wrong.

    There was a boy who was in and out of a Los Angeles hospital it was Mom’s boyfriend. But the Mom kept bringing the boy in under different names. Finally when the kid was 10 or so told a nurse his real name what happened and who did it.

    Girl in Chicago got pregnant at age 9. Didn’t get an abortion. So the detectives waited till the baby was born and did DNA tests on all the men and teen boys who had access to the girl. Turns out it wasn’t any of the men or boys who lived in her crowded immigrant home. It was the baby sitters teen age son. Baby sitter was convicted of some variety of negligence and served some time in prison. Horrible; the girl
    was at the baby sitters only a few hours a day after school.

    Forensic evidence is just one kind of evidence. Very arrogant this Dror person. Takes more than forensic evidence to charge, let alone convict, someone.

    If this study becomes standard practice, more black and Hispanic kids will be beaten raped and even killed. By parents relatives and parents friends. Liberals better 9 guilty go free than 1 innocent be convicted. And the kids suffer. And the beatings just produce kids who beat their own kids.

    There’s something called intermittent explosive disorder. Latest psycho babble diagnosis for the way some people are always starting fights either verbal or physical. The cause is childhood trauma such as being beaten or seeing mom and older siblings being beaten. Also genetic.

    Most common among blacks. That’s one of the reasons why they’re always flaring up and starting fights

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @Alden


    When I was a probation officer a common excuse parents gave when bringing a kid to the ER was fell off a bunk bed.
     
    In prisons 95% of injuries are caused by "falling off bunk beds". Sometimes bunk beds have fingernails and pull out the hair of inmates or leave bite marks.There is no end to what bunk beds do to inmates.

    Basketball accounts for the rest, especially when Crips are playing Latin Kings.

    If prisons were serious about reducing injuries, inmates would be made to sleep on the floor.
  23. Anonymous[361] • Disclaimer says:
    @Altai
    To throw out pattern-matching associations is to throw out science, basically.

    People who deal with the much smaller habitual criminal or violent subcultures learn their biases through experience.

    There is a difference between an outdated and narrow stereotype, say French people wearing striped shirts and carrying onions because the bulk of French people seen by English people were traveling Breton onion sellers prior to mass travel and media in the 19th century. And, on the other hand, all the stereotypes outlined by above that are informed by experience and theory. Those biases are through repeated confirmation.

    I would be horrified if police didn't use heuristics since they'd be wasting astonishing amounts of time trying to deduce if Deshaun had really been killed by another young black man or a young Asian girl. Even Will Smith was able to poke fun at this in Men In Black.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3hAVT2sDqQ

    Replies: @Anonymous, @J.Ross

    Good film that, unlike every one of its sequels.

  24. @Charon
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    I'm suspicious of the notion that boyfriends ever bring in the dead baby.

    1. Even ghetto homies ain't that stupid.

    2. Way too much like work anyway.

    Replies: @Alden, @Colin Wright

    There’s legal obstacles to even relatives other than parents getting medical care for kids. When mine were young and had baby sitters we gave our provider the Kaiser health system a notarized letter authorizing whatever Dr saw the kids in the ER to do any and all treatments the Dr thought was necessary, I don’t remember anyone else ever taking the kids to an ER. But it’s better for a parent to bring a kid in if possible than the ER trying to track down a parent in the days before cell phones for emergency treatment.

    Most parents have a vague idea that they and only they will have to sign something when kids are sick or injured. Even immigrants and blacks.

  25. @Altai
    To throw out pattern-matching associations is to throw out science, basically.

    People who deal with the much smaller habitual criminal or violent subcultures learn their biases through experience.

    There is a difference between an outdated and narrow stereotype, say French people wearing striped shirts and carrying onions because the bulk of French people seen by English people were traveling Breton onion sellers prior to mass travel and media in the 19th century. And, on the other hand, all the stereotypes outlined by above that are informed by experience and theory. Those biases are through repeated confirmation.

    I would be horrified if police didn't use heuristics since they'd be wasting astonishing amounts of time trying to deduce if Deshaun had really been killed by another young black man or a young Asian girl. Even Will Smith was able to poke fun at this in Men In Black.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3hAVT2sDqQ

    Replies: @Anonymous, @J.Ross

    And, at midnight, they eat all the onions!

  26. @Bill Jones
    @Mr. Anon

    I saw something several years ago that claimed that the fingerprint evidence sufficient to ensure conviction in the US wouldn't merit prosecution in the UK.
    Unfortunately, a fifteen second indolent search fails to bring it to the top of the screen.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Dr. DoomNGloom

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    @J.Ross

    Thanks for that but no. The piece I saw (I believe it of a similar vintage so perhaps there was case that raised the issue at that time.) looked at just what it took to "conclude" that a particular pattern of whorl or loop came from a particular finger. If something like 7 or 8 points of similarity in the US then 15 or so in the UK.

    As in your reference, It's striking that the "Science" is anything but. Our entire society is one big Potemkin Village.

  27. @Emil Nikola Richard
    In good news for white people the Dallas Mavericks stomped the Phoenix Suns in Game 7 in Phoenix. The comments in the NBA youtube highlight video are hilarious. Lots of references to Chris Paul Point God. One guy itemized the list of all the NBA playoff series Paul's team has been up 2-0 and lost. There is something like 8 of them.

    The Slovenian guy was amazing.

    Replies: @Charon, @Alden, @Odyssey

    Are you White? I’ll be polite and not make my usual comment about the church of black sports. And the White men who worship at that church . And who subscribe to the cable channels whose advertising revenues pay the teams and black players.

    Even if there’s an E European who beat a black team.

  28. @Zpaladin
    It is telling that two of the three details (race and relationship) of the caregiver were brought up but gender was ignored. I would think that there could also be a difference if it were the grandfather or the girlfriend who brought in the child.

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    The issue is whether the goal of medical examiners is to be CORRECT, in which case extrinsic evidence is very valuable. Or are they supposed to be ISOLATED on only certain evidence.

    I honestly don’t know what their role is supposed to be. If you need their ruling to proceed with an investigation then correct is better. But when testifying as to guilt or innocence, you’d want them to be isolated on the medical evidence alone.

    • Agree: ic1000
  29. @Alfa158
    Blatant case of junk pseudoscience. If Dror was an honest researcher he would have introduced only one variable and the experiment would have consisted of ;
    one scenario, the child was White and was brought in by their grandmother
    and the other, the child was Black and was brought in by their grandmother.
    He introduced a second variable in addition to race, the relationship of the child to the person who brought them in knowing that statistically a boyfriend will be more likely to have harmed the child than a grandmother. Dror consciously manipulated the study to skew towards the outcome he wanted.

    Replies: @Charon, @Jonathan Mason

    He introduced a second variable in addition to race, the relationship of the child to the person who brought them in knowing that statistically a boyfriend will be more likely to have harmed the child than a grandmother. Dror consciously manipulated the study to skew towards the outcome he wanted.

    Baloney! What the study showed was that many medical examiners are thoroughly biased by factors that are irrelevant to the case in question. Obviously some of them were prejudiced against the fictional black boyfriend, who could, for all they knew, have been the one socially responsible and concerned person in the family.

    Don’t let yourself be gaslighted by pseudoscience.

    This case is actually more similar to a doctor failing to diagnose a heart attack in a 35-year-old white woman, simply because she is not a typical heart-attack victim, so he did not bother to run an EKG, and just sent her home with antacids.

    The medical examiners who complained about the study are almost certainly the same medical examiners whose reports indicated that the black boyfriend should be investigated for murder.

    • Disagree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Jonathan Mason

    No, Alfa is right. The test and the control need to be identical to eliminate the other factor. Otherwise you've introduced a very big confound. Dror knows exactly what he's doing and makes a good living off it. Rest assured he uses pattern recognition to buy a house or decide what parts of town to visit.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

  30. The old American legal saying is that better that 9 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted.

    Ah, from an older, more innocent age.

    I have talked to hundreds of prisoners, and to a man, if there is the slightest chance of a successful appeal, they claim to be innocent of the charge they were convicted of, but at the same time freely admit that they have committed many crimes–just not the one they were convicted of, in which they were set up by the police or convicted on false evidence.

    However once all opportunities for appeals are passed, they are much more likely to accept guilt as a means of presenting a favorable case for parole or early release having shown repentance.

    So what I am saying is that in real life it is much more likely that someone who is falsely convicted is a career criminal who had it coming, than an innocent man caught like the protagonist in Kafka’s The Trial or the story we all grew up with.

    • Replies: @Known Fact
    @Jonathan Mason

    On TV you can tell someone's been falsely accused if it's still 20 minutes to the hour. As they drag the suspect away, someone says, "Well I guess that puts a lid on things" -- and it's up to the star to gaze out the window, then turn and reply "I don't know. It's just too pat. Too easy. Something's just not adding up"

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    , @Jonathan Mason
    @Jonathan Mason

    The Fugitive made a considerable contribution towards priming American youth to distrust law enforcement, the US system of justice, and the quality of public transportation in the US.

    A white medical doctor is convicted of murdering his wife on the flimsiest of evidence and sentenced to death, and only saved by a train wreck caused by poor line maintenance. So what chance do regular people have?

    Did Clarence Thomas ever watch this show?

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix, @Known Fact

    , @Dutch Boy
    @Jonathan Mason

    A few years ago a local Superior Court judge with thirty years experience was retiring. A reporter asked him what percent of defendants in trials were guilty. His answer: all of them. They went to trial because they could not get an acceptable plea deal from the DA and so decided to go to trial and hope for some appealable error by the prosecutors.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    , @Bernard
    @Jonathan Mason


    The old American legal saying is that better that 9 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted.
     
    Just hope you don’t live next door to one of the nine.
  31. So having declared objective facts and measures off-limits, the left is now trying to discredit the common-sense use of context?

  32. @Jonathan Mason

    The old American legal saying is that better that 9 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted.
     
    Ah, from an older, more innocent age.

    I have talked to hundreds of prisoners, and to a man, if there is the slightest chance of a successful appeal, they claim to be innocent of the charge they were convicted of, but at the same time freely admit that they have committed many crimes--just not the one they were convicted of, in which they were set up by the police or convicted on false evidence.

    However once all opportunities for appeals are passed, they are much more likely to accept guilt as a means of presenting a favorable case for parole or early release having shown repentance.

    So what I am saying is that in real life it is much more likely that someone who is falsely convicted is a career criminal who had it coming, than an innocent man caught like the protagonist in Kafka's The Trial or the story we all grew up with.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5YAg-oVpE0

    Replies: @Known Fact, @Jonathan Mason, @Dutch Boy, @Bernard

    On TV you can tell someone’s been falsely accused if it’s still 20 minutes to the hour. As they drag the suspect away, someone says, “Well I guess that puts a lid on things” — and it’s up to the star to gaze out the window, then turn and reply “I don’t know. It’s just too pat. Too easy. Something’s just not adding up”

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @Known Fact

    Indeed, but it is interesting how many people form their view of the world at a very young age from watching TV, and never grow out of certain aspects of it if they don't later have personal experience that contradicts the world of TV drama.

    I think that's part of the reason why people whose jobs involve working with people, such as doctors or probation officers or cops often have a very different view of the world from people who is experience is working with materials, processes, or animals.

    Replies: @Known Fact

  33. @Jonathan Mason
    @Alfa158


    He introduced a second variable in addition to race, the relationship of the child to the person who brought them in knowing that statistically a boyfriend will be more likely to have harmed the child than a grandmother. Dror consciously manipulated the study to skew towards the outcome he wanted.
     
    Baloney! What the study showed was that many medical examiners are thoroughly biased by factors that are irrelevant to the case in question. Obviously some of them were prejudiced against the fictional black boyfriend, who could, for all they knew, have been the one socially responsible and concerned person in the family.

    Don't let yourself be gaslighted by pseudoscience.

    This case is actually more similar to a doctor failing to diagnose a heart attack in a 35-year-old white woman, simply because she is not a typical heart-attack victim, so he did not bother to run an EKG, and just sent her home with antacids.

    The medical examiners who complained about the study are almost certainly the same medical examiners whose reports indicated that the black boyfriend should be investigated for murder.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    No, Alfa is right. The test and the control need to be identical to eliminate the other factor. Otherwise you’ve introduced a very big confound. Dror knows exactly what he’s doing and makes a good living off it. Rest assured he uses pattern recognition to buy a house or decide what parts of town to visit.

    • LOL: Gordo
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Actually if you read the paper, the research was a lot more sophisticated than you might think from Sailer's summary.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1556-4029.14697

    There were 133 participants in the study.

    RESULTS

    ... 78 participants ruled the manner of death as "undetermined."

    Of interest were the remaining 55 participants who reached a conclusive determination about the manner of death, with 23 ruling it an "accident" and 32 ruling it a "homicide."

    The medically irrelevant information had a significant impact on manner of death determinations, revealing a clear contextual effect. In the Black condition, the pathologists were about five times more likely to rule the death as a "homicide" rather than an "accident" (35.4% vs. 6.2%), but in the White condition, the results were the opposite: The pathologists ruled the death as a "homicide" only about half as often as they ruled it an "accident" (13.2% vs. 27.9%).

    As presented in Figure 3, with all medical data identical, forensic pathologists were biased in their decisions.

    The data do not allow us to ascertain whether they were biased by the race of the child or/and characteristics of the caretaker. The important finding is that their decisions were noticeably affected by medically irrelevant contextual information (information that should not have any bearing on the decision). Moreover, their decisions were made with confidence, given that pathologists also had the option to decide that the manner of death was undetermined (indeed, 78 participants did not reach a conclusive manner of death).

  34. Chauvin was found guilty, but Fowler’s testimony outraged other pathologists and physicians, who saw in his conclusions a pro-police bias.

    More than 400 of them signed a petition to Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh demanding an investigation into all the death-in-police-custody cases during Fowler’s 17 years in office. Frosh recruited seven international experts to design the study, including Dror. And despite all the blowback Dror has received for trespassing in the field of forensic pathology, he agreed to participate.

    Nothing the huckster Dror has come up with is remotely as damning to the objectivity of this profession as this. At least 400 completely biased hacks.

    As I recall it, the first autopsy by the Hennepin County examiner found
    — no sign of asphyxiation
    — a bunch of different drugs in Floyd’s system
    — including very high–potentially lethal–levels of fentanyl
    — signs of advanced heart disease
    and concluded he died of heart attack, probably drug induced.

    And all the “do-over”s never came up with anything substantive medically. They just sort of asserted “Well this Chauvin guy was kneeling on him and … well … abracadabra … that’s what pushed him over the edge.” The only thing I ever heard on the medical side was “well whereas that level of fentanyl would probably kill some average sized normal non-druggie (like me), Floyd was like really big and used to drugs to … it’s just speculation”.

    Of course all the “reportage” on this was basically “racist flyover white gentile savagely murdered poor oppressed minority innocent who had turned his life around despite racist white society’s constant oppression and was volunteering and making the world a better place and his murder–did we mention *murder*–is a great loss to humanity”. So maybe in this quality reportage I missed some actual medical information that contradicts the rather obvious “drug dealer swallows his own fentanyl laced supply and ODs”. But I very much doubt it.

    • Replies: @Bernard
    @AnotherDad

    AD, I think the truth of the matter is that Chauvin did not exhibit “reasonable care” when restraining Floyd for those eight minutes. I have no doubt that the drugs he ingested were the primary cause of death, but the officer had a responsibility to monitor the wellbeing of his prisoner. For several minutes Floyd was unresponsive and Chauvin made no effort to revive him, or at even check on his condition.

    That said, it absolutely was not premeditated murder, but rather negligent manslaughter and the sentence given was inappropriately long.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  35. The old American legal saying is that better that 9 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted.

    As expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s: it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

    source: WKPD

  36. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Jonathan Mason

    No, Alfa is right. The test and the control need to be identical to eliminate the other factor. Otherwise you've introduced a very big confound. Dror knows exactly what he's doing and makes a good living off it. Rest assured he uses pattern recognition to buy a house or decide what parts of town to visit.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    Actually if you read the paper, the research was a lot more sophisticated than you might think from Sailer’s summary.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1556-4029.14697

    There were 133 participants in the study.

    RESULTS

    … 78 participants ruled the manner of death as “undetermined.”

    Of interest were the remaining 55 participants who reached a conclusive determination about the manner of death, with 23 ruling it an “accident” and 32 ruling it a “homicide.”

    The medically irrelevant information had a significant impact on manner of death determinations, revealing a clear contextual effect. In the Black condition, the pathologists were about five times more likely to rule the death as a “homicide” rather than an “accident” (35.4% vs. 6.2%), but in the White condition, the results were the opposite: The pathologists ruled the death as a “homicide” only about half as often as they ruled it an “accident” (13.2% vs. 27.9%).

    As presented in Figure 3, with all medical data identical, forensic pathologists were biased in their decisions.

    The data do not allow us to ascertain whether they were biased by the race of the child or/and characteristics of the caretaker. The important finding is that their decisions were noticeably affected by medically irrelevant contextual information (information that should not have any bearing on the decision). Moreover, their decisions were made with confidence, given that pathologists also had the option to decide that the manner of death was undetermined (indeed, 78 participants did not reach a conclusive manner of death).

  37. @Charon
    @Emil Nikola Richard


    In good news for white people the Dallas Mavericks stomped the Phoenix Suns
     
    Ultimate pathetic sports cope.

    Replies: @Anon

    Cucks be fuming.

  38. @Jonathan Mason

    The old American legal saying is that better that 9 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted.
     
    Ah, from an older, more innocent age.

    I have talked to hundreds of prisoners, and to a man, if there is the slightest chance of a successful appeal, they claim to be innocent of the charge they were convicted of, but at the same time freely admit that they have committed many crimes--just not the one they were convicted of, in which they were set up by the police or convicted on false evidence.

    However once all opportunities for appeals are passed, they are much more likely to accept guilt as a means of presenting a favorable case for parole or early release having shown repentance.

    So what I am saying is that in real life it is much more likely that someone who is falsely convicted is a career criminal who had it coming, than an innocent man caught like the protagonist in Kafka's The Trial or the story we all grew up with.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5YAg-oVpE0

    Replies: @Known Fact, @Jonathan Mason, @Dutch Boy, @Bernard

    The Fugitive made a considerable contribution towards priming American youth to distrust law enforcement, the US system of justice, and the quality of public transportation in the US.

    A white medical doctor is convicted of murdering his wife on the flimsiest of evidence and sentenced to death, and only saved by a train wreck caused by poor line maintenance. So what chance do regular people have?

    Did Clarence Thomas ever watch this show?

    • Replies: @Nicholas Stix
    @Jonathan Mason

    Don't be ridic. If any show would have caused young people to distrust law enforcement, it would have been Perry Mason. Every week, Lt. Tragg and DA Burger persecuted an innocent person for murder. Effect: None. At the time, LEOs and prosecutors were much more respected than is now the case.

    Replies: @Known Fact, @David In TN

    , @Known Fact
    @Jonathan Mason


    A white medical doctor is convicted of murdering his wife .... and only saved by a train wreck caused by poor line maintenance.
     
    Then God knows how many innocent convicts must have escaped Amtrak's Acela Corridor or the Long Island Rail Road and are still wandering around looking to clear their name

    What The Fugitive also showed was that the small towns Dr. Kimble drifted through week after week were full of lonely, bitter people just waiting for some dramatic catalyst to have it all bubble up. This is the one thing I hated about Mannix, the hostile, belittling depiction of small-town people whenever Joe had to leave LA to crack a case

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

  39. Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd

    Looking forward to the day one powerful person anywhere gathers the courage to say that Floyd was a minor criminal who died of a self induced drug overdose.

  40. @Jonathan Mason

    The old American legal saying is that better that 9 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted.
     
    Ah, from an older, more innocent age.

    I have talked to hundreds of prisoners, and to a man, if there is the slightest chance of a successful appeal, they claim to be innocent of the charge they were convicted of, but at the same time freely admit that they have committed many crimes--just not the one they were convicted of, in which they were set up by the police or convicted on false evidence.

    However once all opportunities for appeals are passed, they are much more likely to accept guilt as a means of presenting a favorable case for parole or early release having shown repentance.

    So what I am saying is that in real life it is much more likely that someone who is falsely convicted is a career criminal who had it coming, than an innocent man caught like the protagonist in Kafka's The Trial or the story we all grew up with.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5YAg-oVpE0

    Replies: @Known Fact, @Jonathan Mason, @Dutch Boy, @Bernard

    A few years ago a local Superior Court judge with thirty years experience was retiring. A reporter asked him what percent of defendants in trials were guilty. His answer: all of them. They went to trial because they could not get an acceptable plea deal from the DA and so decided to go to trial and hope for some appealable error by the prosecutors.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Dutch Boy

    'A few years ago a local Superior Court judge with thirty years experience was retiring. A reporter asked him what percent of defendants in trials were guilty. His answer: all of them. They went to trial because they could not get an acceptable plea deal from the DA and so decided to go to trial and hope for some appealable error by the prosecutors.'

    Close. This matches what I've heard.

    First source was one of Oakland, Ca's top criminal defense attorneys. He used to get depressed because all the guys he wound up defended were not merely guilty, but guilty-and-deserved-to-be-sent-away. He only got hired when the D.A. wasn't offering a plea bargain -- and that only happened when dude was a seriously bad actor.

    The second source was a fellow school teacher who had taught school while he went to law school at night, then after his kids were grown up, went back to teaching because he thought teachers were much nicer people than other attorneys.

    I asked him if he'd ever seen anyone convicted he thought was innocent. One -- in his whole career. One guy.

    Replies: @LP5

  41. Execution for murder is different from punishment for other crimes.

    Execution is not refundable.

    If you’re innocent and given a life sentence, then there is a chance new evidence can come to light, and you can be exonerated.

    If you’re innocent and given one of those weird poison cocktails (and who thought that up anyway–fer chrissake, just overdose them on heroin, safer, more efficient, less un-photogenic, less mistakes)–no refund. Tough shit buddy. And none of the onlookers–ever–think there but for the grace of god . . . Even though they should, in that they have something very significant in common with the dying convict–innocence.

  42. @Known Fact
    @Jonathan Mason

    On TV you can tell someone's been falsely accused if it's still 20 minutes to the hour. As they drag the suspect away, someone says, "Well I guess that puts a lid on things" -- and it's up to the star to gaze out the window, then turn and reply "I don't know. It's just too pat. Too easy. Something's just not adding up"

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    Indeed, but it is interesting how many people form their view of the world at a very young age from watching TV, and never grow out of certain aspects of it if they don’t later have personal experience that contradicts the world of TV drama.

    I think that’s part of the reason why people whose jobs involve working with people, such as doctors or probation officers or cops often have a very different view of the world from people who is experience is working with materials, processes, or animals.

    • Replies: @Known Fact
    @Jonathan Mason


    it is interesting how many people form their view of the world at a very young age from watching TV, and never grow out of certain aspects of it
     
    Oh I plead guilty as charged -- fortunately Rocky and Bullwinkle got to me before Sesame Street.
  43. @Jonathan Mason
    @Jonathan Mason

    The Fugitive made a considerable contribution towards priming American youth to distrust law enforcement, the US system of justice, and the quality of public transportation in the US.

    A white medical doctor is convicted of murdering his wife on the flimsiest of evidence and sentenced to death, and only saved by a train wreck caused by poor line maintenance. So what chance do regular people have?

    Did Clarence Thomas ever watch this show?

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix, @Known Fact

    Don’t be ridic. If any show would have caused young people to distrust law enforcement, it would have been Perry Mason. Every week, Lt. Tragg and DA Burger persecuted an innocent person for murder. Effect: None. At the time, LEOs and prosecutors were much more respected than is now the case.

    • Agree: HammerJack
    • Replies: @Known Fact
    @Nicholas Stix

    Perry Mason demonstrated that the whole point of the American trial system is to get someone in the courtroom to suddenly leap to their feet and tearfully blurt out "I did it! I had to do it! He/she made me do it, don't you see?"

    , @David In TN
    @Nicholas Stix

    During that period nearly all movie and TV dramas had the innocent man being prosecuted for murder trope.

    The first TV series to have a pro-prosecution slant was Law and Order. It eventually starred Sam Waterston as, In the late Lawrence Auster's words, "a whiny liberal."

    The Defenders (1961-65), with E.G. Marshall, took a liberal slant on legal issues, was a more "serious" show than Perry Mason.

    People influenced by those shows came out of law school and saw real life law wasn't like Perry Mason. Alan Dershowitz once said something like, "I found out the clients Perry Mason had don't exist in real life."

    Also, see former Los Angeles County Deputy DA Walt Lewis' book The Criminal Justice Club.

    Replies: @Ralph L, @HammerJack

  44. ‘…He speaks with a mixture of accents and intonations from his upbringing in Israel…’

    That saves time. Now I don’t need to verify my growing suspicion that Dror is Jewish.

    After all, it doesn’t sound much like an Indian name.

  45. @Dutch Boy
    @Jonathan Mason

    A few years ago a local Superior Court judge with thirty years experience was retiring. A reporter asked him what percent of defendants in trials were guilty. His answer: all of them. They went to trial because they could not get an acceptable plea deal from the DA and so decided to go to trial and hope for some appealable error by the prosecutors.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘A few years ago a local Superior Court judge with thirty years experience was retiring. A reporter asked him what percent of defendants in trials were guilty. His answer: all of them. They went to trial because they could not get an acceptable plea deal from the DA and so decided to go to trial and hope for some appealable error by the prosecutors.’

    Close. This matches what I’ve heard.

    First source was one of Oakland, Ca’s top criminal defense attorneys. He used to get depressed because all the guys he wound up defended were not merely guilty, but guilty-and-deserved-to-be-sent-away. He only got hired when the D.A. wasn’t offering a plea bargain — and that only happened when dude was a seriously bad actor.

    The second source was a fellow school teacher who had taught school while he went to law school at night, then after his kids were grown up, went back to teaching because he thought teachers were much nicer people than other attorneys.

    I asked him if he’d ever seen anyone convicted he thought was innocent. One — in his whole career. One guy.

    • Replies: @LP5
    @Colin Wright

    Colin Wright writes:


    First source was one of Oakland, Ca’s top criminal defense attorneys. He used to get depressed because all the guys he wound up defended were not merely guilty, but guilty-and-deserved-to-be-sent-away. He only got hired when the D.A. wasn’t offering a plea bargain — and that only happened when dude was a seriously bad actor.
     
    A top NYC defense attorney told me that his primary job was "to sell scumbuckets to juries".

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  46. @Bill Jones
    @Mr. Anon

    I saw something several years ago that claimed that the fingerprint evidence sufficient to ensure conviction in the US wouldn't merit prosecution in the UK.
    Unfortunately, a fifteen second indolent search fails to bring it to the top of the screen.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Dr. DoomNGloom

    [blockquote]I saw something several years ago that claimed that the fingerprint evidence sufficient to ensure conviction in the US wouldn’t merit prosecution in the UK.
    Unfortunately, a fifteen second indolent search fails to bring it to the top of the screen.[/blockquote]

    Apple explicitly says facial recognition is more reliable.

  47. “Also, people who go into criminal justice don’t tend to be brilliant.”

    Beg to differ: Lt. Frank Columbo of the LAPD bested the attempts of a Mensa group, Steve’s crowd, to cover up a murder at the mansion where they held their parties or whatever it is they do there.

  48. @AnotherDad

    Chauvin was found guilty, but Fowler’s testimony outraged other pathologists and physicians, who saw in his conclusions a pro-police bias.
     


    More than 400 of them signed a petition to Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh demanding an investigation into all the death-in-police-custody cases during Fowler’s 17 years in office. Frosh recruited seven international experts to design the study, including Dror. And despite all the blowback Dror has received for trespassing in the field of forensic pathology, he agreed to participate.
     
    Nothing the huckster Dror has come up with is remotely as damning to the objectivity of this profession as this. At least 400 completely biased hacks.

    As I recall it, the first autopsy by the Hennepin County examiner found
    -- no sign of asphyxiation
    -- a bunch of different drugs in Floyd's system
    -- including very high--potentially lethal--levels of fentanyl
    -- signs of advanced heart disease
    and concluded he died of heart attack, probably drug induced.

    And all the "do-over"s never came up with anything substantive medically. They just sort of asserted "Well this Chauvin guy was kneeling on him and ... well ... abracadabra ... that's what pushed him over the edge." The only thing I ever heard on the medical side was "well whereas that level of fentanyl would probably kill some average sized normal non-druggie (like me), Floyd was like really big and used to drugs to ... it's just speculation".

    Of course all the "reportage" on this was basically "racist flyover white gentile savagely murdered poor oppressed minority innocent who had turned his life around despite racist white society's constant oppression and was volunteering and making the world a better place and his murder--did we mention *murder*--is a great loss to humanity". So maybe in this quality reportage I missed some actual medical information that contradicts the rather obvious "drug dealer swallows his own fentanyl laced supply and ODs". But I very much doubt it.

    Replies: @Bernard

    AD, I think the truth of the matter is that Chauvin did not exhibit “reasonable care” when restraining Floyd for those eight minutes. I have no doubt that the drugs he ingested were the primary cause of death, but the officer had a responsibility to monitor the wellbeing of his prisoner. For several minutes Floyd was unresponsive and Chauvin made no effort to revive him, or at even check on his condition.

    That said, it absolutely was not premeditated murder, but rather negligent manslaughter and the sentence given was inappropriately long.

    • Agree: Jonathan Mason
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Bernard

    'AD, I think the truth of the matter is that Chauvin did not exhibit “reasonable care” when restraining Floyd for those eight minutes. I have no doubt that the drugs he ingested were the primary cause of death, but the officer had a responsibility to monitor the wellbeing of his prisoner. For several minutes Floyd was unresponsive and Chauvin made no effort to revive him, or at even check on his condition.

    'That said, it absolutely was not premeditated murder, but rather negligent manslaughter and the sentence given was inappropriately long.'

    It's all somewhat academic, since as you say, the conviction was for something not even related to the facts of the case but murder, but I would point out two facts you overlook.

    First, Chauvin was in a standoff with a large and restive crowd. Second, he was waiting for the ambulance.

    In a situation like that, I think you stand pat. If you're keeping the mob at bay, and the ambulance is on its way, don't mess with success. Just hold on for a couple more minutes...

    Can you seriously say you would have done anything other than what Chauvin did? What happens if you let go your hold on that giant Negro and he comes to? With that crowd right there?

    Possibly one can argue Chauvin could have acted differently. Did he commit a criminal offense?

    No.

    Replies: @Bernard, @Jonathan Mason

  49. @J.Ross
    We are still living in a world where, if you are serious about killing someone, you can do it and get away with it: and in fact, after the long trend of apparent success eliminating serial killers (a bad metric for several reasons), the Soros prosecutors' program of Break-The-Windows is surely making this worse. In one of the videos of the BLM riots -- this one was in Minnesota at night, a crowd of people charging through a park -- a car pulls up to the sidewalk and multiple sets of arms reach out and grab a woman. The car speeds off. Is she dead? Is she a rape toy in a basement? Was it just her protective brothers getting her out of a reckless situation? No one will ever know, and, despite being filmed, no investigator can really do anything.
    We have the technology and skills to all but eliminate murder, and our psychopathic elite chose to restore chaos.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    ” … our psychopathic elite chose to restore chaos.”

    With chaos comes a new order.

  50. @Jonathan Mason

    The old American legal saying is that better that 9 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted.
     
    Ah, from an older, more innocent age.

    I have talked to hundreds of prisoners, and to a man, if there is the slightest chance of a successful appeal, they claim to be innocent of the charge they were convicted of, but at the same time freely admit that they have committed many crimes--just not the one they were convicted of, in which they were set up by the police or convicted on false evidence.

    However once all opportunities for appeals are passed, they are much more likely to accept guilt as a means of presenting a favorable case for parole or early release having shown repentance.

    So what I am saying is that in real life it is much more likely that someone who is falsely convicted is a career criminal who had it coming, than an innocent man caught like the protagonist in Kafka's The Trial or the story we all grew up with.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5YAg-oVpE0

    Replies: @Known Fact, @Jonathan Mason, @Dutch Boy, @Bernard

    The old American legal saying is that better that 9 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted.

    Just hope you don’t live next door to one of the nine.

    • Thanks: Hibernian
  51. @J.Ross
    @Bill Jones

    Was it this?
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec/14/fingerprint-evidence-opinion-fact

    Replies: @Bill Jones

    Thanks for that but no. The piece I saw (I believe it of a similar vintage so perhaps there was case that raised the issue at that time.) looked at just what it took to “conclude” that a particular pattern of whorl or loop came from a particular finger. If something like 7 or 8 points of similarity in the US then 15 or so in the UK.

    As in your reference, It’s striking that the “Science” is anything but. Our entire society is one big Potemkin Village.

  52. “But his most public work has involved forensic science, a field reckoning with a history of unscientific methods. In 2009, the National Research Council published a groundbreaking report that most forensic sciences—including the analysis of bullets, hair, bite marks, and even fingerprints—are based more on tradition than on quantifiable science. Since then, hundreds of studies and legal cases have revealed flaws in forensic sciences.

    “Dror’s work forms a connective tissue among them. He has shown that most problems with forensics do not originate with ‘bad apple’ technicians who have infiltrated crime labs.”

    This guy’s a monster.

    First of all, what is this “history of unscientific methods”? A statement like that can’t just be thrown out there, without any basis. That has a Stephen Jay Gould feel to it. It’s a red flag.

    “Since then, hundreds of studies and legal cases have revealed flaws in forensic sciences.”

    Another red flag. He and his media apologists are trying to overwhelm and intimidate skeptics out of asking for evidence.

    Whatever happened to “Just follow the science”? Oh, but now we’re trying to free guilty-as-h-e-c-k black murderers, so the science must be declared invalid. In practice, “Just follow the science” means ignoring legitimate science, while following anti-scientific talking points.

    The truth is the diametrical opposite of what Dror said. Bosses in forensic labs, like every other sort of American workplace, have for years been hiring incompetent and malicious colored people as scientists, and they have been railroading innocents by the thousands.

    Joyce Gilchrist (black American) illegally sent eleven men to their deaths in Oklahoma, in murder cases, through perjured testimony and false reports.

    Annie Khan Dookhan (south asian/trinidadian immigrant) caused tens of thousands of false convictions (and some false acquittals) in drug cases in Massachusetts, through maliciously swapping drug samples or deliberately misjudging them.

    Jonathan Salvador (hispanic) botched thousands of drug cases in Texas.

    “Diversity is Strength: It’s also Forensic Science Scandals”

    shorturl.at/hsvS9

    • Thanks: J.Ross
    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    @Nicholas Stix

    It's not clear why you would try to make this a racial thing.

    It's absolutely clear that forensic 'science' is largely a shibboleth - that when one examines what passes for the underlying research, it's so badly conducted as to be indistinguishable from wide-scale fraud.

    Fingerprints; bite-mark evidence; arson investigations; drug dog signalling - all absolute fucking hogwash, as bereft of genuine scientific merit as "lie detectors" and "FBI profiling".

    And that's before we get to prosecutorial misrepresentation of statistics - which is so well understood (by statistical practitioners) that the deliberate misframing of conditional probability is known as the "Prosecutor's Fallacy" (but might equally be termed the "Innumerate Jernalist Fallacy", because it was let loose with abandon during the reportage of SARS-nCoV-2 and related hysteria).

    The Prosecutor's Fallacy is where prosecutors deliberately misrepresent Pr(Innocence|Evidence) by using numbers that actually derive from Pr(Evidence|Innocence).

    Most of what people understand to be true about a lot of things - from mortality risk from a trivial respiratory bug, to questions of evidence in capital murder - is based on precisely that sort of misrepresentation.

    And since human beings are largely incompetent when it comes to conditional probability, and are impressed by false precision ("a 99.99975% chance that the DNA present is the defendant's"), and that judges are just as incompetent as the public at large (because they're "High V" innumerates)... well, the deck is stacked against the defence because it's almost impossible to get that sort of evidence thrown out (or explain the PF to a jury).

    There is also mounting evidence regarding the high rates at which persistent use of some interrogation techniques will predictably result in an innocent person of normal intelligence making a false confession (and you can be certain that the prosecution will only present such parts of 'the tape' that make the confession look 'clean').

    Most criminals are of below-average intelligence, and are even more prone to this phenomenon.

    If I wasn't such a swell guy, I might hope that people who think that the legal system is tilted towards defendants, find themselves facing death in its clutches.

    The reason most people plead out, is that they understand that the defence process is financially ruinous, and that the prosecutor will load the charge-sheet to the max if the peon decides to fight, and that juries are generally amenable to prosecutor's rhetoric and misrepresentation. They also get told that the prosecutor has a high conviction rate, which affects their calculation of the cost-benefit calculation.

    (In some jurisdictions, actually fighting a criminal charge - or even a parking ticket - attracts an additional sanction if the defence is unsuccessful).

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix

  53. @Bernard
    @AnotherDad

    AD, I think the truth of the matter is that Chauvin did not exhibit “reasonable care” when restraining Floyd for those eight minutes. I have no doubt that the drugs he ingested were the primary cause of death, but the officer had a responsibility to monitor the wellbeing of his prisoner. For several minutes Floyd was unresponsive and Chauvin made no effort to revive him, or at even check on his condition.

    That said, it absolutely was not premeditated murder, but rather negligent manslaughter and the sentence given was inappropriately long.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘AD, I think the truth of the matter is that Chauvin did not exhibit “reasonable care” when restraining Floyd for those eight minutes. I have no doubt that the drugs he ingested were the primary cause of death, but the officer had a responsibility to monitor the wellbeing of his prisoner. For several minutes Floyd was unresponsive and Chauvin made no effort to revive him, or at even check on his condition.

    ‘That said, it absolutely was not premeditated murder, but rather negligent manslaughter and the sentence given was inappropriately long.’

    It’s all somewhat academic, since as you say, the conviction was for something not even related to the facts of the case but murder, but I would point out two facts you overlook.

    First, Chauvin was in a standoff with a large and restive crowd. Second, he was waiting for the ambulance.

    In a situation like that, I think you stand pat. If you’re keeping the mob at bay, and the ambulance is on its way, don’t mess with success. Just hold on for a couple more minutes…

    Can you seriously say you would have done anything other than what Chauvin did? What happens if you let go your hold on that giant Negro and he comes to? With that crowd right there?

    Possibly one can argue Chauvin could have acted differently. Did he commit a criminal offense?

    No.

    • Replies: @Bernard
    @Colin Wright


    It’s all somewhat academic, since as you say, the conviction was for something not even related to the facts of the case but murder, but I would point out two facts you overlook.

    First, Chauvin was in a standoff with a large and restive crowd. Second, he was waiting for the ambulance.

    In a situation like that, I think you stand pat. If you’re keeping the mob at bay, and the ambulance is on its way, don’t mess with success. Just hold on for a couple more minutes…

    Can you seriously say you would have done anything other than what Chauvin did? What happens if you let go your hold on that giant Negro and he comes to? With that crowd right there?
     
    Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down in the street and in an unconscious state. The threat he posed to Chauvin was nearly zero. As for the hostile crowd, other armed officers (five I believe) were present at the scene.
    I’m by no means a defender of the media’s narrative of how the events of the day transpired, but it’s important to be truthful and accurate when discussing the situation.
    , @Jonathan Mason
    @Colin Wright


    Can you seriously say you would have done anything other than what Chauvin did? What happens if you let go your hold on that giant Negro and he comes to? With that crowd right there?
     
    Did Chauvin not have a taser or a gun?

    The question "what would you have done?" is a false dichotomy, because you have probably not been trained in how to handle such situations. And Chauvin had previous form for kneeling on the neck of a teenage boy who was not resisting.

    The trouble with techniques like neck-kneeling is that they only work until they don't work.
  54. @Emil Nikola Richard
    In good news for white people the Dallas Mavericks stomped the Phoenix Suns in Game 7 in Phoenix. The comments in the NBA youtube highlight video are hilarious. Lots of references to Chris Paul Point God. One guy itemized the list of all the NBA playoff series Paul's team has been up 2-0 and lost. There is something like 8 of them.

    The Slovenian guy was amazing.

    Replies: @Charon, @Alden, @Odyssey

    Luka Doncic is actually a Serbian (so as Jokic), originally from Serbian province – Kosovo. His parents moved to Slovenia while all these were Yugoslavia.

  55. @Dieter Kief

    “To introduce race … appears to be an effort to label the survey responders, and their colleagues by proxy, as racist,”
     
    So the rule is: Race is the taboo. And - the hope/the wish/the expectation = at least the willingness to accept - - that blissful ignorance will spring from this rule. (The rule being a function of the neurotic defense mechanism of repression (and neglect - et. al.). - A powerful socio-psychological dynamic.)

    Replies: @Odyssey

    I bet that rarely anyone knows that the ‘race’ is an ancient Serbian word. It originated and referred to the followers of the ancient goddess of agriculture Reasa (or Rasa). Slavics, before this term was invented in the 7th c.AC, called themselves ‘srb’ (serbs) what means – ‘cousin, relative, the member of the same race’. This original ancient name was preserved by modern Serbs and the word ‘race’ (rasa) was adopted in English language. It is used as an alternative name for Serbs (Rasi) so as the root for their later derivatives – Russians and Prussians. It means that the terms ‘race’ and ‘serb’ have the same meaning.

    So, your rule can be rephrased as – Serbs are the taboo…

    Anyone who remembers never seen before in history media satanisation (bigger than Russians today), before bombing them with depleted uranium in late 90ies, will agree with your rule.

    Btw, I can also bet that rarely anyone knows where the birthplace of white race is?

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Odyssey


    I bet that rarely anyone knows that the ‘race’ is an ancient Serbian word.
     
    The word race seems to be the offspring of many a father 'n'n quite some mothers

    https://www.etymonline.com/word/race

    - The flow (as in gene-flow...) and movement aspect (as in being moved to (fill in an emotional state of mind (not least anger, rage, excitement and arousel!...)).

    And what about the birthplace? - The steppes somewhere near the Altai region is what you kinda made me - guess.

    Replies: @Odyssey

    , @J.Ross
    @Odyssey

    I remember the demonization of the Serbs. At the Wall Street Journal comment section right now they have commentators calling for the complete extermination of the Russian people; after all, the Russians started it, plus everyone knows they're liars, so: extermination. I wonder if the Journal ever talks about Israel. If they do, they may have to review a policy of tolerating calls for extermination, based on who started the invasion and who has a reputation for deceit.
    I am very skeptical of anything based on pre-Christian Slavic religion because there is almost no primary source material at all. German neo-pagans rely heavily on the writings of their Roman enemies. I am also skeptical about a Serbian word entering English. With that said, EtymOnline has -- French, then:


    possibly from Italian razza, which is of unknown origin
     
    [Emphasis added] That makes sense. Serb to Croat to Italian to French to English. The Italians were all up in Yugoslav clay from Roman times, and there is a memorial to the Italian composer Tartini in his Slovenian birthplace.
  56. @Roger
    We should not really be depending on whether some expert used the word "homicide". He should be detailing what the evidence shows, and let someone else draw a legal conclusion.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    Homicide can be premeditated, intentinal but not premeditated, recless, negligent, or justifiable. Anyting except natural causes. If someone dies from a punch or a bullet, regardless of the cause, it’s a homicide. How often is it a close call wheether or not a death is from natural causes/ it may be an accident, but that involves some degree of negligence, maybe by the victim. Negligent suicide?

  57. @Jonathan Mason
    @Known Fact

    Indeed, but it is interesting how many people form their view of the world at a very young age from watching TV, and never grow out of certain aspects of it if they don't later have personal experience that contradicts the world of TV drama.

    I think that's part of the reason why people whose jobs involve working with people, such as doctors or probation officers or cops often have a very different view of the world from people who is experience is working with materials, processes, or animals.

    Replies: @Known Fact

    it is interesting how many people form their view of the world at a very young age from watching TV, and never grow out of certain aspects of it

    Oh I plead guilty as charged — fortunately Rocky and Bullwinkle got to me before Sesame Street.

  58. @Nicholas Stix
    @Jonathan Mason

    Don't be ridic. If any show would have caused young people to distrust law enforcement, it would have been Perry Mason. Every week, Lt. Tragg and DA Burger persecuted an innocent person for murder. Effect: None. At the time, LEOs and prosecutors were much more respected than is now the case.

    Replies: @Known Fact, @David In TN

    Perry Mason demonstrated that the whole point of the American trial system is to get someone in the courtroom to suddenly leap to their feet and tearfully blurt out “I did it! I had to do it! He/she made me do it, don’t you see?”

    • LOL: Nicholas Stix
  59. @Jonathan Mason
    @Jonathan Mason

    The Fugitive made a considerable contribution towards priming American youth to distrust law enforcement, the US system of justice, and the quality of public transportation in the US.

    A white medical doctor is convicted of murdering his wife on the flimsiest of evidence and sentenced to death, and only saved by a train wreck caused by poor line maintenance. So what chance do regular people have?

    Did Clarence Thomas ever watch this show?

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix, @Known Fact

    A white medical doctor is convicted of murdering his wife …. and only saved by a train wreck caused by poor line maintenance.

    Then God knows how many innocent convicts must have escaped Amtrak’s Acela Corridor or the Long Island Rail Road and are still wandering around looking to clear their name

    What The Fugitive also showed was that the small towns Dr. Kimble drifted through week after week were full of lonely, bitter people just waiting for some dramatic catalyst to have it all bubble up. This is the one thing I hated about Mannix, the hostile, belittling depiction of small-town people whenever Joe had to leave LA to crack a case

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @Known Fact

    We can laugh about it now, but millions of people all around the world obtained their first impressions of America from TV shows like The Fugitive and Dallas.

  60. @Nicholas Stix
    @Jonathan Mason

    Don't be ridic. If any show would have caused young people to distrust law enforcement, it would have been Perry Mason. Every week, Lt. Tragg and DA Burger persecuted an innocent person for murder. Effect: None. At the time, LEOs and prosecutors were much more respected than is now the case.

    Replies: @Known Fact, @David In TN

    During that period nearly all movie and TV dramas had the innocent man being prosecuted for murder trope.

    The first TV series to have a pro-prosecution slant was Law and Order. It eventually starred Sam Waterston as, In the late Lawrence Auster’s words, “a whiny liberal.”

    The Defenders (1961-65), with E.G. Marshall, took a liberal slant on legal issues, was a more “serious” show than Perry Mason.

    People influenced by those shows came out of law school and saw real life law wasn’t like Perry Mason. Alan Dershowitz once said something like, “I found out the clients Perry Mason had don’t exist in real life.”

    Also, see former Los Angeles County Deputy DA Walt Lewis’ book The Criminal Justice Club.

    • Agree: Nicholas Stix
    • Replies: @Ralph L
    @David In TN

    A significantly large percentage of the people first arrested and/or put on trial on L&O were not the guilty parties. Everyone likes a plot twist.

    , @HammerJack
    @David In TN


    Alan Dershowitz once said something like, “I found out the clients Perry Mason had don’t exist in real life.”
     
    Whaaaa? Hot rich shiksas who want to do their defense attorneys?

    No worries, Dersh. Raymond Burr didn't exactly want them anyway.

  61. @David In TN
    @Nicholas Stix

    During that period nearly all movie and TV dramas had the innocent man being prosecuted for murder trope.

    The first TV series to have a pro-prosecution slant was Law and Order. It eventually starred Sam Waterston as, In the late Lawrence Auster's words, "a whiny liberal."

    The Defenders (1961-65), with E.G. Marshall, took a liberal slant on legal issues, was a more "serious" show than Perry Mason.

    People influenced by those shows came out of law school and saw real life law wasn't like Perry Mason. Alan Dershowitz once said something like, "I found out the clients Perry Mason had don't exist in real life."

    Also, see former Los Angeles County Deputy DA Walt Lewis' book The Criminal Justice Club.

    Replies: @Ralph L, @HammerJack

    A significantly large percentage of the people first arrested and/or put on trial on L&O were not the guilty parties. Everyone likes a plot twist.

  62. @David In TN
    @Nicholas Stix

    During that period nearly all movie and TV dramas had the innocent man being prosecuted for murder trope.

    The first TV series to have a pro-prosecution slant was Law and Order. It eventually starred Sam Waterston as, In the late Lawrence Auster's words, "a whiny liberal."

    The Defenders (1961-65), with E.G. Marshall, took a liberal slant on legal issues, was a more "serious" show than Perry Mason.

    People influenced by those shows came out of law school and saw real life law wasn't like Perry Mason. Alan Dershowitz once said something like, "I found out the clients Perry Mason had don't exist in real life."

    Also, see former Los Angeles County Deputy DA Walt Lewis' book The Criminal Justice Club.

    Replies: @Ralph L, @HammerJack

    Alan Dershowitz once said something like, “I found out the clients Perry Mason had don’t exist in real life.”

    Whaaaa? Hot rich shiksas who want to do their defense attorneys?

    No worries, Dersh. Raymond Burr didn’t exactly want them anyway.

  63. @Odyssey
    @Dieter Kief

    I bet that rarely anyone knows that the ‘race’ is an ancient Serbian word. It originated and referred to the followers of the ancient goddess of agriculture Reasa (or Rasa). Slavics, before this term was invented in the 7th c.AC, called themselves ‘srb’ (serbs) what means – ‘cousin, relative, the member of the same race’. This original ancient name was preserved by modern Serbs and the word ‘race’ (rasa) was adopted in English language. It is used as an alternative name for Serbs (Rasi) so as the root for their later derivatives – Russians and Prussians. It means that the terms ‘race’ and ‘serb’ have the same meaning.

    So, your rule can be rephrased as – Serbs are the taboo…

    Anyone who remembers never seen before in history media satanisation (bigger than Russians today), before bombing them with depleted uranium in late 90ies, will agree with your rule.

    Btw, I can also bet that rarely anyone knows where the birthplace of white race is?

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @J.Ross

    I bet that rarely anyone knows that the ‘race’ is an ancient Serbian word.

    The word race seems to be the offspring of many a father ‘n’n quite some mothers

    https://www.etymonline.com/word/race

    – The flow (as in gene-flow…) and movement aspect (as in being moved to (fill in an emotional state of mind (not least anger, rage, excitement and arousel!…)).

    And what about the birthplace? – The steppes somewhere near the Altai region is what you kinda made me – guess.

    • Replies: @Odyssey
    @Dieter Kief

    Pretty good effort, sehr gut. The link presents few versions of meanings, one is what I mentioned (‘people of common descent] 1560s, "people descended from a common ancestor, class of persons allied by common ancestry," from French race, earlier razza "race, breed, lineage, family" (16c.), possibly from Italian razza, which is of unknown origin…’).

    Let’s use the logic. Is it possible that the word ‘race’ (‘common ancestor’) originated in the 16th cAC? It did not exist before? Or, it existed for 7-8000 years and it had some sense at that time? Examples in very young languages (French, Italian, Portuguese) do not mean anything. Who of them ‘invented’ this word and how this word was transferred from one language to the other? The link says that it is not a Latin word. So, where from, for e.g. Italian language took this word?

    In brief, this is a word ('of unknown origin'!!!) originated at least 7-8000 years ago in Vincha and, as I said above, has the same meaning as ‘serb’. Serbian language is the oldest in Europe, much older than Latin and ‘ancient’ Greek. And, yes, J.Ross, English adopted thousands of words from Serbian language what is normal, because it is several thousands of years older than English, German, etc. For e.g. Serbian word ‘med’ (honey), a root for ‘medicine, medication’ was adopted by almost 50 languages. English adopted for e.g. ghost, vampire, cat, land, etc.

    Regarding the ‘white race’ which is often present here in discussions, is it interesting that we don’t know where ‘whiteness’ originated, why we must guess this, was this a natural human state and given by God since the beginning of time?.. Some other time I may write about this.

  64. @Odyssey
    @Dieter Kief

    I bet that rarely anyone knows that the ‘race’ is an ancient Serbian word. It originated and referred to the followers of the ancient goddess of agriculture Reasa (or Rasa). Slavics, before this term was invented in the 7th c.AC, called themselves ‘srb’ (serbs) what means – ‘cousin, relative, the member of the same race’. This original ancient name was preserved by modern Serbs and the word ‘race’ (rasa) was adopted in English language. It is used as an alternative name for Serbs (Rasi) so as the root for their later derivatives – Russians and Prussians. It means that the terms ‘race’ and ‘serb’ have the same meaning.

    So, your rule can be rephrased as – Serbs are the taboo…

    Anyone who remembers never seen before in history media satanisation (bigger than Russians today), before bombing them with depleted uranium in late 90ies, will agree with your rule.

    Btw, I can also bet that rarely anyone knows where the birthplace of white race is?

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @J.Ross

    I remember the demonization of the Serbs. At the Wall Street Journal comment section right now they have commentators calling for the complete extermination of the Russian people; after all, the Russians started it, plus everyone knows they’re liars, so: extermination. I wonder if the Journal ever talks about Israel. If they do, they may have to review a policy of tolerating calls for extermination, based on who started the invasion and who has a reputation for deceit.
    I am very skeptical of anything based on pre-Christian Slavic religion because there is almost no primary source material at all. German neo-pagans rely heavily on the writings of their Roman enemies. I am also skeptical about a Serbian word entering English. With that said, EtymOnline has — French, then:

    possibly from Italian razza, which is of unknown origin

    [Emphasis added] That makes sense. Serb to Croat to Italian to French to English. The Italians were all up in Yugoslav clay from Roman times, and there is a memorial to the Italian composer Tartini in his Slovenian birthplace.

    • Thanks: Odyssey
  65. @Known Fact
    @Jonathan Mason


    A white medical doctor is convicted of murdering his wife .... and only saved by a train wreck caused by poor line maintenance.
     
    Then God knows how many innocent convicts must have escaped Amtrak's Acela Corridor or the Long Island Rail Road and are still wandering around looking to clear their name

    What The Fugitive also showed was that the small towns Dr. Kimble drifted through week after week were full of lonely, bitter people just waiting for some dramatic catalyst to have it all bubble up. This is the one thing I hated about Mannix, the hostile, belittling depiction of small-town people whenever Joe had to leave LA to crack a case

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    We can laugh about it now, but millions of people all around the world obtained their first impressions of America from TV shows like The Fugitive and Dallas.

  66. LP5 says:
    @Colin Wright
    @Dutch Boy

    'A few years ago a local Superior Court judge with thirty years experience was retiring. A reporter asked him what percent of defendants in trials were guilty. His answer: all of them. They went to trial because they could not get an acceptable plea deal from the DA and so decided to go to trial and hope for some appealable error by the prosecutors.'

    Close. This matches what I've heard.

    First source was one of Oakland, Ca's top criminal defense attorneys. He used to get depressed because all the guys he wound up defended were not merely guilty, but guilty-and-deserved-to-be-sent-away. He only got hired when the D.A. wasn't offering a plea bargain -- and that only happened when dude was a seriously bad actor.

    The second source was a fellow school teacher who had taught school while he went to law school at night, then after his kids were grown up, went back to teaching because he thought teachers were much nicer people than other attorneys.

    I asked him if he'd ever seen anyone convicted he thought was innocent. One -- in his whole career. One guy.

    Replies: @LP5

    Colin Wright writes:

    First source was one of Oakland, Ca’s top criminal defense attorneys. He used to get depressed because all the guys he wound up defended were not merely guilty, but guilty-and-deserved-to-be-sent-away. He only got hired when the D.A. wasn’t offering a plea bargain — and that only happened when dude was a seriously bad actor.

    A top NYC defense attorney told me that his primary job was “to sell scumbuckets to juries”.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @LP5

    And if you are a defense lawyer and manage to get an innocent man acquitted, he probably won't pay you the rest of what he owes you because his life has been ruined enough already.

    Replies: @LP5

  67. @Colin Wright
    @Bernard

    'AD, I think the truth of the matter is that Chauvin did not exhibit “reasonable care” when restraining Floyd for those eight minutes. I have no doubt that the drugs he ingested were the primary cause of death, but the officer had a responsibility to monitor the wellbeing of his prisoner. For several minutes Floyd was unresponsive and Chauvin made no effort to revive him, or at even check on his condition.

    'That said, it absolutely was not premeditated murder, but rather negligent manslaughter and the sentence given was inappropriately long.'

    It's all somewhat academic, since as you say, the conviction was for something not even related to the facts of the case but murder, but I would point out two facts you overlook.

    First, Chauvin was in a standoff with a large and restive crowd. Second, he was waiting for the ambulance.

    In a situation like that, I think you stand pat. If you're keeping the mob at bay, and the ambulance is on its way, don't mess with success. Just hold on for a couple more minutes...

    Can you seriously say you would have done anything other than what Chauvin did? What happens if you let go your hold on that giant Negro and he comes to? With that crowd right there?

    Possibly one can argue Chauvin could have acted differently. Did he commit a criminal offense?

    No.

    Replies: @Bernard, @Jonathan Mason

    It’s all somewhat academic, since as you say, the conviction was for something not even related to the facts of the case but murder, but I would point out two facts you overlook.

    First, Chauvin was in a standoff with a large and restive crowd. Second, he was waiting for the ambulance.

    In a situation like that, I think you stand pat. If you’re keeping the mob at bay, and the ambulance is on its way, don’t mess with success. Just hold on for a couple more minutes…

    Can you seriously say you would have done anything other than what Chauvin did? What happens if you let go your hold on that giant Negro and he comes to? With that crowd right there?

    Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down in the street and in an unconscious state. The threat he posed to Chauvin was nearly zero. As for the hostile crowd, other armed officers (five I believe) were present at the scene.
    I’m by no means a defender of the media’s narrative of how the events of the day transpired, but it’s important to be truthful and accurate when discussing the situation.

  68. @LP5
    @Colin Wright

    Colin Wright writes:


    First source was one of Oakland, Ca’s top criminal defense attorneys. He used to get depressed because all the guys he wound up defended were not merely guilty, but guilty-and-deserved-to-be-sent-away. He only got hired when the D.A. wasn’t offering a plea bargain — and that only happened when dude was a seriously bad actor.
     
    A top NYC defense attorney told me that his primary job was "to sell scumbuckets to juries".

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    And if you are a defense lawyer and manage to get an innocent man acquitted, he probably won’t pay you the rest of what he owes you because his life has been ruined enough already.

    • Replies: @LP5
    @Steve Sailer

    The process is often the punishment.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  69. @Steve Sailer
    @LP5

    And if you are a defense lawyer and manage to get an innocent man acquitted, he probably won't pay you the rest of what he owes you because his life has been ruined enough already.

    Replies: @LP5

    The process is often the punishment.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @LP5

    'The process is often the punishment.'

    Indeed. Witness the January 6th defendants. Regardless of what the verdict in your case eventually is, you've got to be sorry you walked through that door.

    Your observation does make one rethink how the justice system actually works.

    It would seem to be be: irritate the government, and you will be severely punished. If you actually did something illegal, you may be even more severely punished.

    The comparison is melodramatic, but there's an anecdote in The Gulag Achipelago.

    The guard is reading out sentences, and hits one for twenty five years. He's curious:

    'What did you do?'

    'Nothing.'

    'You're lying. The sentence for nothing is ten years'

  70. Bayes rules, dude.

  71. @LP5
    @Steve Sailer

    The process is often the punishment.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘The process is often the punishment.’

    Indeed. Witness the January 6th defendants. Regardless of what the verdict in your case eventually is, you’ve got to be sorry you walked through that door.

    Your observation does make one rethink how the justice system actually works.

    It would seem to be be: irritate the government, and you will be severely punished. If you actually did something illegal, you may be even more severely punished.

    The comparison is melodramatic, but there’s an anecdote in The Gulag Achipelago.

    The guard is reading out sentences, and hits one for twenty five years. He’s curious:

    ‘What did you do?’

    ‘Nothing.’

    ‘You’re lying. The sentence for nothing is ten years’

  72. @Alden
    With apologies to Jack D and other Jewish commenters I knew Dror is a Jew by the third paragraph.

    When I was a probation officer a common excuse parents gave when bringing a kid to the ER was fell off a bunk bed. First thing the social workers and detectives did was go to the home and take a look at the bedrooms. If there were no bunk beds a reasonable assumption was parents relatives who ever did it. Or no stairs in the home or apartment house.

    And forensic evidence doesn’t make the whole case. There’s also other evidence. Like questioning the kid if he she’s over about 5. Even a 3 year old can state what happened. Although it’s iffy and not really viable evidence because of the kids age. And questioning the parents care takers people living in the house. Looking at medical records of the kid and siblings. Serious injuries to all the kids or an ER visit every year is indicative somethings wrong.

    There was a boy who was in and out of a Los Angeles hospital it was Mom’s boyfriend. But the Mom kept bringing the boy in under different names. Finally when the kid was 10 or so told a nurse his real name what happened and who did it.

    Girl in Chicago got pregnant at age 9. Didn’t get an abortion. So the detectives waited till the baby was born and did DNA tests on all the men and teen boys who had access to the girl. Turns out it wasn’t any of the men or boys who lived in her crowded immigrant home. It was the baby sitters teen age son. Baby sitter was convicted of some variety of negligence and served some time in prison. Horrible; the girl
    was at the baby sitters only a few hours a day after school.

    Forensic evidence is just one kind of evidence. Very arrogant this Dror person. Takes more than forensic evidence to charge, let alone convict, someone.

    If this study becomes standard practice, more black and Hispanic kids will be beaten raped and even killed. By parents relatives and parents friends. Liberals better 9 guilty go free than 1 innocent be convicted. And the kids suffer. And the beatings just produce kids who beat their own kids.

    There’s something called intermittent explosive disorder. Latest psycho babble diagnosis for the way some people are always starting fights either verbal or physical. The cause is childhood trauma such as being beaten or seeing mom and older siblings being beaten. Also genetic.

    Most common among blacks. That’s one of the reasons why they’re always flaring up and starting fights

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    When I was a probation officer a common excuse parents gave when bringing a kid to the ER was fell off a bunk bed.

    In prisons 95% of injuries are caused by “falling off bunk beds”. Sometimes bunk beds have fingernails and pull out the hair of inmates or leave bite marks.There is no end to what bunk beds do to inmates.

    Basketball accounts for the rest, especially when Crips are playing Latin Kings.

    If prisons were serious about reducing injuries, inmates would be made to sleep on the floor.

  73. @Colin Wright
    @Bernard

    'AD, I think the truth of the matter is that Chauvin did not exhibit “reasonable care” when restraining Floyd for those eight minutes. I have no doubt that the drugs he ingested were the primary cause of death, but the officer had a responsibility to monitor the wellbeing of his prisoner. For several minutes Floyd was unresponsive and Chauvin made no effort to revive him, or at even check on his condition.

    'That said, it absolutely was not premeditated murder, but rather negligent manslaughter and the sentence given was inappropriately long.'

    It's all somewhat academic, since as you say, the conviction was for something not even related to the facts of the case but murder, but I would point out two facts you overlook.

    First, Chauvin was in a standoff with a large and restive crowd. Second, he was waiting for the ambulance.

    In a situation like that, I think you stand pat. If you're keeping the mob at bay, and the ambulance is on its way, don't mess with success. Just hold on for a couple more minutes...

    Can you seriously say you would have done anything other than what Chauvin did? What happens if you let go your hold on that giant Negro and he comes to? With that crowd right there?

    Possibly one can argue Chauvin could have acted differently. Did he commit a criminal offense?

    No.

    Replies: @Bernard, @Jonathan Mason

    Can you seriously say you would have done anything other than what Chauvin did? What happens if you let go your hold on that giant Negro and he comes to? With that crowd right there?

    Did Chauvin not have a taser or a gun?

    The question “what would you have done?” is a false dichotomy, because you have probably not been trained in how to handle such situations. And Chauvin had previous form for kneeling on the neck of a teenage boy who was not resisting.

    The trouble with techniques like neck-kneeling is that they only work until they don’t work.

  74. @Nicholas Stix
    “But his most public work has involved forensic science, a field reckoning with a history of unscientific methods. In 2009, the National Research Council published a groundbreaking report that most forensic sciences—including the analysis of bullets, hair, bite marks, and even fingerprints—are based more on tradition than on quantifiable science. Since then, hundreds of studies and legal cases have revealed flaws in forensic sciences.

    “Dror’s work forms a connective tissue among them. He has shown that most problems with forensics do not originate with ‘bad apple’ technicians who have infiltrated crime labs.”

    This guy’s a monster.

    First of all, what is this “history of unscientific methods”? A statement like that can’t just be thrown out there, without any basis. That has a Stephen Jay Gould feel to it. It’s a red flag.

    “Since then, hundreds of studies and legal cases have revealed flaws in forensic sciences.”

    Another red flag. He and his media apologists are trying to overwhelm and intimidate skeptics out of asking for evidence.

    Whatever happened to “Just follow the science”? Oh, but now we’re trying to free guilty-as-h-e-c-k black murderers, so the science must be declared invalid. In practice, “Just follow the science” means ignoring legitimate science, while following anti-scientific talking points.

    The truth is the diametrical opposite of what Dror said. Bosses in forensic labs, like every other sort of American workplace, have for years been hiring incompetent and malicious colored people as scientists, and they have been railroading innocents by the thousands.

    Joyce Gilchrist (black American) illegally sent eleven men to their deaths in Oklahoma, in murder cases, through perjured testimony and false reports.

    Annie Khan Dookhan (south asian/trinidadian immigrant) caused tens of thousands of false convictions (and some false acquittals) in drug cases in Massachusetts, through maliciously swapping drug samples or deliberately misjudging them.

    Jonathan Salvador (hispanic) botched thousands of drug cases in Texas.

    “Diversity is Strength: It’s also Forensic Science Scandals”

    shorturl.at/hsvS9

    Replies: @Kratoklastes

    It’s not clear why you would try to make this a racial thing.

    It’s absolutely clear that forensic ‘science’ is largely a shibboleth – that when one examines what passes for the underlying research, it’s so badly conducted as to be indistinguishable from wide-scale fraud.

    Fingerprints; bite-mark evidence; arson investigations; drug dog signalling – all absolute fucking hogwash, as bereft of genuine scientific merit as “lie detectors” and “FBI profiling”.

    And that’s before we get to prosecutorial misrepresentation of statistics – which is so well understood (by statistical practitioners) that the deliberate misframing of conditional probability is known as the “Prosecutor’s Fallacy” (but might equally be termed the “Innumerate Jernalist Fallacy“, because it was let loose with abandon during the reportage of SARS-nCoV-2 and related hysteria).

    The Prosecutor’s Fallacy is where prosecutors deliberately misrepresent Pr(Innocence|Evidence) by using numbers that actually derive from Pr(Evidence|Innocence).

    Most of what people understand to be true about a lot of things – from mortality risk from a trivial respiratory bug, to questions of evidence in capital murder – is based on precisely that sort of misrepresentation.

    And since human beings are largely incompetent when it comes to conditional probability, and are impressed by false precision (“a 99.99975% chance that the DNA present is the defendant’s”), and that judges are just as incompetent as the public at large (because they’re “High V” innumerates)… well, the deck is stacked against the defence because it’s almost impossible to get that sort of evidence thrown out (or explain the PF to a jury).

    There is also mounting evidence regarding the high rates at which persistent use of some interrogation techniques will predictably result in an innocent person of normal intelligence making a false confession (and you can be certain that the prosecution will only present such parts of ‘the tape’ that make the confession look ‘clean’).

    Most criminals are of below-average intelligence, and are even more prone to this phenomenon.

    If I wasn’t such a swell guy, I might hope that people who think that the legal system is tilted towards defendants, find themselves facing death in its clutches.

    The reason most people plead out, is that they understand that the defence process is financially ruinous, and that the prosecutor will load the charge-sheet to the max if the peon decides to fight, and that juries are generally amenable to prosecutor’s rhetoric and misrepresentation. They also get told that the prosecutor has a high conviction rate, which affects their calculation of the cost-benefit calculation.

    (In some jurisdictions, actually fighting a criminal charge – or even a parking ticket – attracts an additional sanction if the defence is unsuccessful).

    • Replies: @Nicholas Stix
    @Kratoklastes

    "It’s not clear why you would try to make this a racial thing."

    I didn't make it a racial thing; it is a racial thing.

    “Fingerprints; bite-mark evidence; arson investigations; drug dog signalling – all absolute fucking hogwash, as bereft of genuine scientific merit as ‘lie detectors’ and ‘FBI profiling’.”...

    Are you the only commenter posting under the handle “kratoklastes”? Because, while you previously sounded perfectly sane, frankly you sound completely nuts.

    “The reason most people plead out, is that they understand that the defence process is financially ruinous, and that the prosecutor will load the charge-sheet to the max if the peon decides to fight...”

    The third quoted passage is not nuts. I just cited it to show that I’m paying attention. But when you spike your champagne with sewage, you’re still left with sewage.

    Replies: @Kratoklastes

  75. @Charon
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    I'm suspicious of the notion that boyfriends ever bring in the dead baby.

    1. Even ghetto homies ain't that stupid.

    2. Way too much like work anyway.

    Replies: @Alden, @Colin Wright

    ‘I’m suspicious of the notion that boyfriends ever bring in the dead baby.

    ‘1. Even ghetto homies ain’t that stupid.

    ‘2. Way too much like work anyway.’

    Well, I dare say I’m more virulently racist with respect to blacks than most even here. Too, I had the decided lack of good fortune go grow up around all too many blacks — and not the usual positive selection one has at work, in middle-class neighborhoods. etc. Finally, a grown male can do some serious harm if he gets excited. Even more than he meant to. It can happen.

    So that said, I think the following observations are in order.

    1. Most ghetto blacks aren’t monsters. Some are, and few really are potential success stories — but most aren’t monsters.

    2. People do things they didn’t mean to.

    3. Some of them will say ‘oh shit’ and grab the kid and head for the ER. They may dream up some story on the way — but they’ll do the right thing.

  76. @Dieter Kief
    @Odyssey


    I bet that rarely anyone knows that the ‘race’ is an ancient Serbian word.
     
    The word race seems to be the offspring of many a father 'n'n quite some mothers

    https://www.etymonline.com/word/race

    - The flow (as in gene-flow...) and movement aspect (as in being moved to (fill in an emotional state of mind (not least anger, rage, excitement and arousel!...)).

    And what about the birthplace? - The steppes somewhere near the Altai region is what you kinda made me - guess.

    Replies: @Odyssey

    Pretty good effort, sehr gut. The link presents few versions of meanings, one is what I mentioned (‘people of common descent] 1560s, “people descended from a common ancestor, class of persons allied by common ancestry,” from French race, earlier razza “race, breed, lineage, family” (16c.), possibly from Italian razza, which is of unknown origin…’).

    Let’s use the logic. Is it possible that the word ‘race’ (‘common ancestor’) originated in the 16th cAC? It did not exist before? Or, it existed for 7-8000 years and it had some sense at that time? Examples in very young languages (French, Italian, Portuguese) do not mean anything. Who of them ‘invented’ this word and how this word was transferred from one language to the other? The link says that it is not a Latin word. So, where from, for e.g. Italian language took this word?

    In brief, this is a word (‘of unknown origin’!!!) originated at least 7-8000 years ago in Vincha and, as I said above, has the same meaning as ‘serb’. Serbian language is the oldest in Europe, much older than Latin and ‘ancient’ Greek. And, yes, J.Ross, English adopted thousands of words from Serbian language what is normal, because it is several thousands of years older than English, German, etc. For e.g. Serbian word ‘med’ (honey), a root for ‘medicine, medication’ was adopted by almost 50 languages. English adopted for e.g. ghost, vampire, cat, land, etc.

    Regarding the ‘white race’ which is often present here in discussions, is it interesting that we don’t know where ‘whiteness’ originated, why we must guess this, was this a natural human state and given by God since the beginning of time?.. Some other time I may write about this.

  77. @Kratoklastes
    @Nicholas Stix

    It's not clear why you would try to make this a racial thing.

    It's absolutely clear that forensic 'science' is largely a shibboleth - that when one examines what passes for the underlying research, it's so badly conducted as to be indistinguishable from wide-scale fraud.

    Fingerprints; bite-mark evidence; arson investigations; drug dog signalling - all absolute fucking hogwash, as bereft of genuine scientific merit as "lie detectors" and "FBI profiling".

    And that's before we get to prosecutorial misrepresentation of statistics - which is so well understood (by statistical practitioners) that the deliberate misframing of conditional probability is known as the "Prosecutor's Fallacy" (but might equally be termed the "Innumerate Jernalist Fallacy", because it was let loose with abandon during the reportage of SARS-nCoV-2 and related hysteria).

    The Prosecutor's Fallacy is where prosecutors deliberately misrepresent Pr(Innocence|Evidence) by using numbers that actually derive from Pr(Evidence|Innocence).

    Most of what people understand to be true about a lot of things - from mortality risk from a trivial respiratory bug, to questions of evidence in capital murder - is based on precisely that sort of misrepresentation.

    And since human beings are largely incompetent when it comes to conditional probability, and are impressed by false precision ("a 99.99975% chance that the DNA present is the defendant's"), and that judges are just as incompetent as the public at large (because they're "High V" innumerates)... well, the deck is stacked against the defence because it's almost impossible to get that sort of evidence thrown out (or explain the PF to a jury).

    There is also mounting evidence regarding the high rates at which persistent use of some interrogation techniques will predictably result in an innocent person of normal intelligence making a false confession (and you can be certain that the prosecution will only present such parts of 'the tape' that make the confession look 'clean').

    Most criminals are of below-average intelligence, and are even more prone to this phenomenon.

    If I wasn't such a swell guy, I might hope that people who think that the legal system is tilted towards defendants, find themselves facing death in its clutches.

    The reason most people plead out, is that they understand that the defence process is financially ruinous, and that the prosecutor will load the charge-sheet to the max if the peon decides to fight, and that juries are generally amenable to prosecutor's rhetoric and misrepresentation. They also get told that the prosecutor has a high conviction rate, which affects their calculation of the cost-benefit calculation.

    (In some jurisdictions, actually fighting a criminal charge - or even a parking ticket - attracts an additional sanction if the defence is unsuccessful).

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix

    “It’s not clear why you would try to make this a racial thing.”

    I didn’t make it a racial thing; it is a racial thing.

    “Fingerprints; bite-mark evidence; arson investigations; drug dog signalling – all absolute fucking hogwash, as bereft of genuine scientific merit as ‘lie detectors’ and ‘FBI profiling’.”…

    Are you the only commenter posting under the handle “kratoklastes”? Because, while you previously sounded perfectly sane, frankly you sound completely nuts.

    “The reason most people plead out, is that they understand that the defence process is financially ruinous, and that the prosecutor will load the charge-sheet to the max if the peon decides to fight…”

    The third quoted passage is not nuts. I just cited it to show that I’m paying attention. But when you spike your champagne with sewage, you’re still left with sewage.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    @Nicholas Stix


    Are you the only commenter posting under the handle “kratoklastes”?
     
    As far as I'm aware - I don't check that sort of thing.

    Because, while you previously sounded perfectly sane, frankly you sound completely nuts.
     
    Eye of the beholder - after all some cops actually believe that 'gut instinct' is a thing... they're objectively wrong about that, too.

    If you genuinely believe[1] that the forensic techniques I listed have genuine scientifically-buttressed empirical support that passes modern statistical scrutiny, all I can say is that it shows that one of two things is true:
    ① You haven't examined any data on the issue (i.e.,, you chose to remain ignorant);
    ② You have examined data on the issue, but were not capable of evaluating it properly (i.e., you remained ignorant by no fault of your own: incompetence is often a metacognitive problem).

    If it's ①, then I would recommend PCAST Report: Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods , which was pretty scathing about several of the techniques I listed.

    They didn't mention drug dog signalling - for that have a look at the NSW Ombudsman's Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001, which shows that ~75% of people searched after a drug dog signal, were not carrying drugs: that's not just worse than a coin toss, it's only slightly better than 2 consecutive coin tosses (i.e., 26%).

    The key quote (from the Summary, p(ii): more detail is in §5.6 on p29):


    Prohibited drugs were only located in 26% of the searches following an indication. That is, almost three-quarters of all indications did not result in the location of prohibited drugs.

     

    That's consistent with findings in other published research.

    Enough about drug dogs though (that's literally 'settled science'; nobody involved thinks that they're anything other than a set of theatrical props - although cops will claim otherwise on the witness stand).

    Back to the PCAST report...

    One of the key problems is always that even techniques that are, in principle, scientifically valid when performed 'ideally' (i.e., by a dispassionate, competent operator), can be presented in ways that over-state the probative value of the technique qua evidence.

    The key quote from PCAST (p 66):


    (b) assertions about the probative value of proposed identifications must be scientifically valid—including that examiners should report the overall false positive rate and sensitivity for the method established in the studies of foundational validity; demonstrate that the samples used in the foundational studies are relevant to the facts of the case; where applicable, report probative value of the observed match based on the specific features observed in the case; and not make claims or implications that go beyond the empirical evidence.
     
    Note that I didn't list DNA evidence (single and mixed-source) - but PCAST did, mostly on the basis outlined in the paragraph above.

    [1] As I constantly point out, beliefs differ from knowledge in a very fundamental way. It is entirely possible to continue to believe a thing that is objectively false: there is no logical inconsistency introduced by doing so (unlike claiming to know a thing that is objectively false... that's logically inconsistent because it violates the veridicality requirement).

    Beliefs are not subject to the veridicality constraints that apply to knowledge. To be known, a thing must be true.

    Replies: @res

  78. @Nicholas Stix
    @Kratoklastes

    "It’s not clear why you would try to make this a racial thing."

    I didn't make it a racial thing; it is a racial thing.

    “Fingerprints; bite-mark evidence; arson investigations; drug dog signalling – all absolute fucking hogwash, as bereft of genuine scientific merit as ‘lie detectors’ and ‘FBI profiling’.”...

    Are you the only commenter posting under the handle “kratoklastes”? Because, while you previously sounded perfectly sane, frankly you sound completely nuts.

    “The reason most people plead out, is that they understand that the defence process is financially ruinous, and that the prosecutor will load the charge-sheet to the max if the peon decides to fight...”

    The third quoted passage is not nuts. I just cited it to show that I’m paying attention. But when you spike your champagne with sewage, you’re still left with sewage.

    Replies: @Kratoklastes

    Are you the only commenter posting under the handle “kratoklastes”?

    As far as I’m aware – I don’t check that sort of thing.

    Because, while you previously sounded perfectly sane, frankly you sound completely nuts.

    Eye of the beholder – after all some cops actually believe that ‘gut instinct’ is a thing… they’re objectively wrong about that, too.

    If you genuinely believe[1] that the forensic techniques I listed have genuine scientifically-buttressed empirical support that passes modern statistical scrutiny, all I can say is that it shows that one of two things is true:
    ① You haven’t examined any data on the issue (i.e.,, you chose to remain ignorant);
    ② You have examined data on the issue, but were not capable of evaluating it properly (i.e., you remained ignorant by no fault of your own: incompetence is often a metacognitive problem).

    If it’s ①, then I would recommend PCAST Report: Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods , which was pretty scathing about several of the techniques I listed.

    They didn’t mention drug dog signalling – for that have a look at the NSW Ombudsman’s Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001, which shows that ~75% of people searched after a drug dog signal, were not carrying drugs: that’s not just worse than a coin toss, it’s only slightly better than 2 consecutive coin tosses (i.e., 26%).

    The key quote (from the Summary, p(ii): more detail is in §5.6 on p29):

    Prohibited drugs were only located in 26% of the searches following an indication. That is, almost three-quarters of all indications did not result in the location of prohibited drugs.

    That’s consistent with findings in other published research.

    Enough about drug dogs though (that’s literally ‘settled science’; nobody involved thinks that they’re anything other than a set of theatrical props – although cops will claim otherwise on the witness stand).

    Back to the PCAST report…

    One of the key problems is always that even techniques that are, in principle, scientifically valid when performed ‘ideally’ (i.e., by a dispassionate, competent operator), can be presented in ways that over-state the probative value of the technique qua evidence.

    The key quote from PCAST (p 66):

    (b) assertions about the probative value of proposed identifications must be scientifically valid—including that examiners should report the overall false positive rate and sensitivity for the method established in the studies of foundational validity; demonstrate that the samples used in the foundational studies are relevant to the facts of the case; where applicable, report probative value of the observed match based on the specific features observed in the case; and not make claims or implications that go beyond the empirical evidence.

    Note that I didn’t list DNA evidence (single and mixed-source) – but PCAST did, mostly on the basis outlined in the paragraph above.

    [1] As I constantly point out, beliefs differ from knowledge in a very fundamental way. It is entirely possible to continue to believe a thing that is objectively false: there is no logical inconsistency introduced by doing so (unlike claiming to know a thing that is objectively false… that’s logically inconsistent because it violates the veridicality requirement).

    Beliefs are not subject to the veridicality constraints that apply to knowledge. To be known, a thing must be true.

    • Replies: @res
    @Kratoklastes


    They didn’t mention drug dog signalling – for that have a look at the NSW Ombudsman’s Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001, which shows that ~75% of people searched after a drug dog signal, were not carrying drugs: that’s not just worse than a coin toss, it’s only slightly better than 2 consecutive coin tosses (i.e., 26%).
     
    That's odd from someone as statistically knowledgeable as you who also went on about conditional probability earlier. I am certain YOU know that Pr(carrying drugs) is key here. Why do you elide that in your simplistic coin toss comparison? Or do you really think 50% of people are carrying drugs at any given time?

    Most of your statements hold up pretty well. So that seemed like an outlier.

    Digging a bit deeper, here is a link to a discussion of that act (the original seems to have disappeared so from the Internet Archive).
    https://web.archive.org/web/20050616085826/http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/publications/Publist_pdfs/Discussion%20Papers/Police%20Drug%20Detection.pdf

    In chapter 5 they discuss accuracy. There I find this. Seems like an important observation.


    As noted above, during the first 12 months of the operation of the Drug Dogs Act, almost three-quarters of drug dog indications did not lead to police locating drugs on a person. However, analysis of police records shows that in 61%39 of all incidents in which no drugs were found, the person searched made some kind of admission that they had recently used cannabis or that they had been in the presence of cannabis smokers.
     
    I don't doubt there is overconfidence in forensic evidence, but the initial quote above seems like a mediocre example with a biased and overly simplistic presentation.

    Replies: @Kratoklastes

  79. res says:
    @Kratoklastes
    @Nicholas Stix


    Are you the only commenter posting under the handle “kratoklastes”?
     
    As far as I'm aware - I don't check that sort of thing.

    Because, while you previously sounded perfectly sane, frankly you sound completely nuts.
     
    Eye of the beholder - after all some cops actually believe that 'gut instinct' is a thing... they're objectively wrong about that, too.

    If you genuinely believe[1] that the forensic techniques I listed have genuine scientifically-buttressed empirical support that passes modern statistical scrutiny, all I can say is that it shows that one of two things is true:
    ① You haven't examined any data on the issue (i.e.,, you chose to remain ignorant);
    ② You have examined data on the issue, but were not capable of evaluating it properly (i.e., you remained ignorant by no fault of your own: incompetence is often a metacognitive problem).

    If it's ①, then I would recommend PCAST Report: Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods , which was pretty scathing about several of the techniques I listed.

    They didn't mention drug dog signalling - for that have a look at the NSW Ombudsman's Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001, which shows that ~75% of people searched after a drug dog signal, were not carrying drugs: that's not just worse than a coin toss, it's only slightly better than 2 consecutive coin tosses (i.e., 26%).

    The key quote (from the Summary, p(ii): more detail is in §5.6 on p29):


    Prohibited drugs were only located in 26% of the searches following an indication. That is, almost three-quarters of all indications did not result in the location of prohibited drugs.

     

    That's consistent with findings in other published research.

    Enough about drug dogs though (that's literally 'settled science'; nobody involved thinks that they're anything other than a set of theatrical props - although cops will claim otherwise on the witness stand).

    Back to the PCAST report...

    One of the key problems is always that even techniques that are, in principle, scientifically valid when performed 'ideally' (i.e., by a dispassionate, competent operator), can be presented in ways that over-state the probative value of the technique qua evidence.

    The key quote from PCAST (p 66):


    (b) assertions about the probative value of proposed identifications must be scientifically valid—including that examiners should report the overall false positive rate and sensitivity for the method established in the studies of foundational validity; demonstrate that the samples used in the foundational studies are relevant to the facts of the case; where applicable, report probative value of the observed match based on the specific features observed in the case; and not make claims or implications that go beyond the empirical evidence.
     
    Note that I didn't list DNA evidence (single and mixed-source) - but PCAST did, mostly on the basis outlined in the paragraph above.

    [1] As I constantly point out, beliefs differ from knowledge in a very fundamental way. It is entirely possible to continue to believe a thing that is objectively false: there is no logical inconsistency introduced by doing so (unlike claiming to know a thing that is objectively false... that's logically inconsistent because it violates the veridicality requirement).

    Beliefs are not subject to the veridicality constraints that apply to knowledge. To be known, a thing must be true.

    Replies: @res

    They didn’t mention drug dog signalling – for that have a look at the NSW Ombudsman’s Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001, which shows that ~75% of people searched after a drug dog signal, were not carrying drugs: that’s not just worse than a coin toss, it’s only slightly better than 2 consecutive coin tosses (i.e., 26%).

    That’s odd from someone as statistically knowledgeable as you who also went on about conditional probability earlier. I am certain YOU know that Pr(carrying drugs) is key here. Why do you elide that in your simplistic coin toss comparison? Or do you really think 50% of people are carrying drugs at any given time?

    Most of your statements hold up pretty well. So that seemed like an outlier.

    Digging a bit deeper, here is a link to a discussion of that act (the original seems to have disappeared so from the Internet Archive).
    https://web.archive.org/web/20050616085826/http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/publications/Publist_pdfs/Discussion%20Papers/Police%20Drug%20Detection.pdf

    In chapter 5 they discuss accuracy. There I find this. Seems like an important observation.

    As noted above, during the first 12 months of the operation of the Drug Dogs Act, almost three-quarters of drug dog indications did not lead to police locating drugs on a person. However, analysis of police records shows that in 61%39 of all incidents in which no drugs were found, the person searched made some kind of admission that they had recently used cannabis or that they had been in the presence of cannabis smokers.

    I don’t doubt there is overconfidence in forensic evidence, but the initial quote above seems like a mediocre example with a biased and overly simplistic presentation.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    @res


    I am certain YOU know that Pr(carrying drugs) is key here. Why do you elide that in your simplistic coin toss comparison? Or do you really think 50% of people are carrying drugs at any given time?
     
    The coin-toss comparison could have been expressed more clearly: think of the drug dog as a device that the handler uses to 'trigger' a search.

    If the drug dog did a perfect job, the handler would only search people who had drugs. It would get a 100% 'hit rate' regardless of the proportion of people carrying drugs.

    Its target hit rate is 100% - not "proportion of people carrying drugs" (which I would venture is maybe 1%, except at music festivals, where it might rise to 10% or 15%). A 'hit rate' of 26% is unacceptable, and drug dogs should not be permitted.

    Using Pfizer-math™, if the dog is right 26% of the time but only 1% of people are carrying drugs, then the dog is performing 26-fold Pfizer-better™ than chance (the data in the Ombudsman's Report shows that in 'everyday' situations, the hit rate is nowhere near that Pfizer-good™). That way is the Primrose Path, because it completely ignores the right of non-drug-carriers to be free of searches of their personal effects.

    Being 'in the presence of cannabis smokers' is not against the law in my jurisdiction, so the Ployce claiming that the invalidly-searched citizens "made some kind of admission" is not 'supportive' of the use of drug dogs - any more than a breathalyser that showed that I might have been drunk yesterday.

    Every false signal should result in a fine - payable to the victim - equal to the penalty faced by the drug-carrier if apprehended. Pigeons, meet cat. (Obviously it's never going to happen, but better to dream of that, than my usual quotidian dream of the Day of the Machete, ideally to befall anyone who draws a paycheck out of other people's taxes)

    Fact is that they're invariably searching people on a whim, or because the uniformed dropout didn't like the suspect's haircut or t-shirt, or some other bullshit that is justified ex post facto by claiming in court that Officer Fido is a precision instrument that can be relied on. A goodly proportion of dog signals, are "Clever Hans Effect": Officer Fido reading Officer Dumbshit's body language and responding.

    (Equally as often, Officer D-Student is keen on a search because they think that a young female passer-by is nice-looking - and getting to go through her personal effects is what counts as a 'good ice-breaker' in the costumed-thug demographic).

    Replies: @Kratoklastes

  80. @res
    @Kratoklastes


    They didn’t mention drug dog signalling – for that have a look at the NSW Ombudsman’s Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001, which shows that ~75% of people searched after a drug dog signal, were not carrying drugs: that’s not just worse than a coin toss, it’s only slightly better than 2 consecutive coin tosses (i.e., 26%).
     
    That's odd from someone as statistically knowledgeable as you who also went on about conditional probability earlier. I am certain YOU know that Pr(carrying drugs) is key here. Why do you elide that in your simplistic coin toss comparison? Or do you really think 50% of people are carrying drugs at any given time?

    Most of your statements hold up pretty well. So that seemed like an outlier.

    Digging a bit deeper, here is a link to a discussion of that act (the original seems to have disappeared so from the Internet Archive).
    https://web.archive.org/web/20050616085826/http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/publications/Publist_pdfs/Discussion%20Papers/Police%20Drug%20Detection.pdf

    In chapter 5 they discuss accuracy. There I find this. Seems like an important observation.


    As noted above, during the first 12 months of the operation of the Drug Dogs Act, almost three-quarters of drug dog indications did not lead to police locating drugs on a person. However, analysis of police records shows that in 61%39 of all incidents in which no drugs were found, the person searched made some kind of admission that they had recently used cannabis or that they had been in the presence of cannabis smokers.
     
    I don't doubt there is overconfidence in forensic evidence, but the initial quote above seems like a mediocre example with a biased and overly simplistic presentation.

    Replies: @Kratoklastes

    I am certain YOU know that Pr(carrying drugs) is key here. Why do you elide that in your simplistic coin toss comparison? Or do you really think 50% of people are carrying drugs at any given time?

    The coin-toss comparison could have been expressed more clearly: think of the drug dog as a device that the handler uses to ‘trigger’ a search.

    If the drug dog did a perfect job, the handler would only search people who had drugs. It would get a 100% ‘hit rate’ regardless of the proportion of people carrying drugs.

    Its target hit rate is 100% – not “proportion of people carrying drugs” (which I would venture is maybe 1%, except at music festivals, where it might rise to 10% or 15%). A ‘hit rate’ of 26% is unacceptable, and drug dogs should not be permitted.

    Using Pfizer-math™, if the dog is right 26% of the time but only 1% of people are carrying drugs, then the dog is performing 26-fold Pfizer-better™ than chance (the data in the Ombudsman’s Report shows that in ‘everyday’ situations, the hit rate is nowhere near that Pfizer-good™). That way is the Primrose Path, because it completely ignores the right of non-drug-carriers to be free of searches of their personal effects.

    Being ‘in the presence of cannabis smokers’ is not against the law in my jurisdiction, so the Ployce claiming that the invalidly-searched citizens “made some kind of admission” is not ‘supportive’ of the use of drug dogs – any more than a breathalyser that showed that I might have been drunk yesterday.

    Every false signal should result in a fine – payable to the victim – equal to the penalty faced by the drug-carrier if apprehended. Pigeons, meet cat. (Obviously it’s never going to happen, but better to dream of that, than my usual quotidian dream of the Day of the Machete, ideally to befall anyone who draws a paycheck out of other people’s taxes)

    Fact is that they’re invariably searching people on a whim, or because the uniformed dropout didn’t like the suspect’s haircut or t-shirt, or some other bullshit that is justified ex post facto by claiming in court that Officer Fido is a precision instrument that can be relied on. A goodly proportion of dog signals, are “Clever Hans Effect“: Officer Fido reading Officer Dumbshit’s body language and responding.

    (Equally as often, Officer D-Student is keen on a search because they think that a young female passer-by is nice-looking – and getting to go through her personal effects is what counts as a ‘good ice-breaker’ in the costumed-thug demographic).

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    @Kratoklastes

    ... Oh, I should point out: I never get searched - I'm a 57 year old, 187cm white guy with a 'fade' ... drug dealers think have a cop 'vibe', which is pretty funny.

    I've walked up to a drug dog 'team' at Spencer St, and patted the dog - with a quarter-ounce of weed in my backpack. (I hadn't shaved for almost a week, so I was rocking my "escaped convict/mental patient" look; it just didn't cross my mind that I looked skethcy as fuck).

    Nobody batted an eyelid, and Officer Fido was glad of the attention: it's not his fault he's being used as a prop.

    That said, I am not stupid enough to have ever deliberately breathed in the fumes from burning leafy matter of any sort whatsoever (when I use weed, it's as a tincture - to the tune of 2 drops in the evenings) - so the dog would have to be fake-trained on the smell of 'raw' (un-decarbed) weed.

  81. @Kratoklastes
    @res


    I am certain YOU know that Pr(carrying drugs) is key here. Why do you elide that in your simplistic coin toss comparison? Or do you really think 50% of people are carrying drugs at any given time?
     
    The coin-toss comparison could have been expressed more clearly: think of the drug dog as a device that the handler uses to 'trigger' a search.

    If the drug dog did a perfect job, the handler would only search people who had drugs. It would get a 100% 'hit rate' regardless of the proportion of people carrying drugs.

    Its target hit rate is 100% - not "proportion of people carrying drugs" (which I would venture is maybe 1%, except at music festivals, where it might rise to 10% or 15%). A 'hit rate' of 26% is unacceptable, and drug dogs should not be permitted.

    Using Pfizer-math™, if the dog is right 26% of the time but only 1% of people are carrying drugs, then the dog is performing 26-fold Pfizer-better™ than chance (the data in the Ombudsman's Report shows that in 'everyday' situations, the hit rate is nowhere near that Pfizer-good™). That way is the Primrose Path, because it completely ignores the right of non-drug-carriers to be free of searches of their personal effects.

    Being 'in the presence of cannabis smokers' is not against the law in my jurisdiction, so the Ployce claiming that the invalidly-searched citizens "made some kind of admission" is not 'supportive' of the use of drug dogs - any more than a breathalyser that showed that I might have been drunk yesterday.

    Every false signal should result in a fine - payable to the victim - equal to the penalty faced by the drug-carrier if apprehended. Pigeons, meet cat. (Obviously it's never going to happen, but better to dream of that, than my usual quotidian dream of the Day of the Machete, ideally to befall anyone who draws a paycheck out of other people's taxes)

    Fact is that they're invariably searching people on a whim, or because the uniformed dropout didn't like the suspect's haircut or t-shirt, or some other bullshit that is justified ex post facto by claiming in court that Officer Fido is a precision instrument that can be relied on. A goodly proportion of dog signals, are "Clever Hans Effect": Officer Fido reading Officer Dumbshit's body language and responding.

    (Equally as often, Officer D-Student is keen on a search because they think that a young female passer-by is nice-looking - and getting to go through her personal effects is what counts as a 'good ice-breaker' in the costumed-thug demographic).

    Replies: @Kratoklastes

    … Oh, I should point out: I never get searched – I’m a 57 year old, 187cm white guy with a ‘fade’ … drug dealers think have a cop ‘vibe’, which is pretty funny.

    I’ve walked up to a drug dog ‘team’ at Spencer St, and patted the dog – with a quarter-ounce of weed in my backpack. (I hadn’t shaved for almost a week, so I was rocking my “escaped convict/mental patient” look; it just didn’t cross my mind that I looked skethcy as fuck).

    Nobody batted an eyelid, and Officer Fido was glad of the attention: it’s not his fault he’s being used as a prop.

    That said, I am not stupid enough to have ever deliberately breathed in the fumes from burning leafy matter of any sort whatsoever (when I use weed, it’s as a tincture – to the tune of 2 drops in the evenings) – so the dog would have to be fake-trained on the smell of ‘raw’ (un-decarbed) weed.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Becker update V1.3.2
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World