We now understand that the police lie in court all the time and it seems
that no one is ever charged with perjury.
Crime labs are incentivized to get false convictions
The recent corruption scandal in Massachusetts pointed out assorted
flaws in how crime labs are run using a perverse funding scheme.
Crime labs are being incentivized to turn out results favorable to
the prosecution by getting payments only upon conviction from the
state or from court assessed fees from the person convicted.
If no conviction results, the crime lab does not get paid as much.
Apparently, no one in the judicial system is intelligent enough
to see a problem here. The brainiac judges and DAs
Crime labs should never be given preferential treatment for finding
a certain result.
Even after Annie Dookhan was convicted, the state crime
falls under the
Massachusetts State Police
. This in itself is a conflict of interest that will result
in even more convictions..
This crime lab story shows once again the corrupting influence of
the War On Drugs.
burn-pattern analysis: testimony that a fire's burn pattern
is evidence of arson
A burn pattern may possibly show arson and it may
possibly show accidents. The evidence would have to be
bullet-lead examinations: used to compare crime-scene bullets
with bullets associated with a suspect's gun.
This issue in forensics come closest to real evidence and is
the primary reason suspects like to ditch their guns. You of course
have to retrieve the bullets in a reasonable condition (usually
out of a body). If the bullet is compressed or damaged, the value
of such evidence is diminished.
bite-mark analysis: attempts to match a defendant's teeth to
marks on a victim
Bite marks are highly ambiguous even if all bites occur at the
same angle. There is no proof that bite marks are unique in any
way, unless the biter has missing teeth. Then we might have
something close to a match, but still not
proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The standards board could also question how widely some of the more
dubious techniques should be used. Mary Bush, a forensic dentist at
the State University of New York in Buffalo, says that there is little
evidence that bite marks left in skin can reliably identify
perpetrators. In her lab, moulds of different sets of teeth were
clamped into the skin of cadavers. Digital images of the marks were
then analysed. Often, the marks could not be used to identify the
Gregory Golden, president of the American Board of Forensic Odontology,
argues that the method is useful for eliminating suspects or determining
whether a bite mark is human.
According to the Innocence Project, however, at least 15 people whose
convictions involved bite marks and who served time in prison have been
exonerated through DNA evidence since 1993. That alone suggests that
the method should be investigated, says Bush. 'We're fighting 30 years
- DNA, the invisible evidence
DNA evidence is basically invisible to the human eye. In order
to get convicted on the basis of DNA evidence, you simply
believe what you are told by the prosecution. This is just
like believing that a defendant confessed to a crime. You have
no visible evidence that your brain can clearly and unambiguously
understand. You have to place your trust in what the police say,
(Hint: police and DAs lie all the time).
In earlier times, people were hung or burned at the stake because
church leaders would state that they were possessed by demonic forces
or were witches. DNA is like that.
Can DNA be trusted ? No!
dog-scent lineups: match a suspect's scent to one collected at
a crime scene
When the police say the scent of a suspect is the same as the scent
at a crime scene, are you actually going to believe it? If the dog
could unambiguously communicate with you in the language of your
preference, that would give credence to the dog as a witness. But
since they do not understand english, you are once again placed in
the position of merely believing what the police say
(and police lie all the time).
Dogs are also used to circumvent (or create) probable cause.
Dogs can easily be trained to bark on the movement of an arm. a
facial expression of its trainer or on a keyword like drugs
Would you trust your fate to a dog? If not, you should not place
someone else's fate on what a dog says, because we know that dogs
have a very limited vocabulary, and we cannot understand a single
utterance of theirs.
In 2010, a team of researchers at the University of California,
Davis set out to test the reliability of drug- and bomb-sniffing dogs.
The team assembled 18 police dogs and their handlers and gave them
a routine task: go through a room and sniff out the drugs and
But there was a twist. The room was clean. No drugs, no explosives.
In order to pass the test, the handlers and their dogs had to go
through the room and detect nothing.
But of 144 runs, that happened only 21 times, for
a failure rate of 85 percent.
Although drug-sniffing dogs are supposed to find drugs on their own,
the researchers concluded that they were influenced by their
handlers, and that's what led to such a high failure rate.
Police drug sniffing dogs are simply probable cause generators.
They are trained to bark on a whim. A slight tug, a word from
the dog trainer, a hand signal, a turn of the trainer's left or right
foot. perhaps the trainer's left leg moving
How do you argue that a dog barking on command is wrong?
In my opinion, if the dog cannot understand the oath to not
commit perjury he cannot legally testify in court and be cross
examined as the Sixth Amendment requires.
U.S. Constitution: Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to
a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with
the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for
marijuana detection field kits false positives
According to researchers, marijuana detection field kits
give way too many false positives.
The real reason for having to challenge any of this is that over time,
we have taken note, time and time again, that
the police and DAs lie all the time
because no one is ever charged with perjury.