On 24-3-2009 22:53, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> It should be about evidence that someone was some place and not about 
>> trying to suggest that the witness that says something that disproves 
>> you is unreliable.
> 
> I think it's both. Of course, if you have photographic evidence of the 
> crime and the person who took the picture testifies it represents what 
> he saw, that's pretty good proof.
> 
> But what about "we found the dead person, and footprints nearby matched 
> the shoes we found in the accused's closet, and the accused didn't go to 
> work that day."  Someone has to decide if the evidence is conclusive.

Yes and if that is all there is the accused should go free. Unless the 
shoes are either extremely uncommon or still have dirt on it that 
matches the scene of the crime and that happens to be unique. If anyone 
starts trying to make a case that the accused might not have liked the 
person or that he has been violent before or... then you have past a 
line. Then it is not about fact anymore but about how to play the jury.

> Or, in the case I was in, we had to decide if the two police officers 
> who claimed to have seen the guy breaking into the car and stealing the 
> jacket out of it (said jacket having the name on the pocket that matched 
> the car's owner's name and not the name of the man caught wearing it) 
> were telling the truth. No, maybe not, but when the police catch you 
> red-handed at something, what kind of evidence do you want?
> 
> If you discount the testimony of all eyewitnesses that aren't backed up 
> by "hard evidence", you're going to convict very very few people. If 
> you're willing to believe *some* witnesses, then you'd better have a 
> mechanism in place for deciding which ones are trustworthy and which 
> aren't, yes?

yes.

>> Good question. We tend to have people trained to evaluate the 
>> evidence. I think that works here, but I know it fails in a lot of 
>> other places.
> 
> Yep. Now you're trusting that the person who works for the same 
> organization that incorrectly arrested you in the first place is 
> trustworthy.

But they are not the same organization, at least here (and are appointed 
and not elected). But this is indeed the weak point for some countries.

>> That's the theory, what the guy in the video actually says is that it 
>> does not work that way in practice. He is e.g talking about how to use 
>> something someone said in a way to discredit him. Take the example of 
>> someone saying that he did not like someone and turning that into a 
>> motive. Apparently (and I have to take his word for it) it can be 
>> enough for a conviction in the US combined with him not having an 
>> alibi etc. Nothing here is about verifiable material evidence. That is 
>> what struck me.
> 
> I think he's exagerating. Of course things go wrong, but they're not 
> supposed to. Of course, they go wrong in other countries too. I can't 
> imagine how you do it thousands of times and never once make a mistake.
> 
> The standard of evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If the cop says 
> you did it, and you say you didn't, and the cop can show that you've 
> lied, 

If you lied about something relevant, I agree with you. If it is about 
general lying I think I don't agree. That comes very soon too close to 
character assassination.

> 
>> Note that I have never heard a similar advice concerning the Dutch 
>> police, nor have I ever heard a story even remotely similar to the 
>> examples given here.
> 
> Sure. It would be nice if the police actually worked for the people 
> here, rather than against them.

I think normally they don't work against the people here, I think. I 
don't have much experience but usually they try to find a reason not to 
have to intervene.

> What the police do, and what the courts do, are two different things 
> completely.
> 
>> I think that won't hold up in court here as evidence.
> 
> What, admitting you were speeding isn't evidence that you were speeding? 
> That seems kind of odd to me.

Why? Why would you believe somebody like that? Too many instances of 
people wrongly accusing themselves made this sort of evidence considered 
very weak and not valid without other proof.

> 
>>> or "Did you stop me because of the drugs in the car?" then you've 
>>> given the cop the evidence he needs to give to the jury.
>>
>> That would be useless, unless the cop did find drugs in the car. In 
>> which case it is superfluous.
> 
> Right. But it gives the cop a reason to look for the drugs. Without 
> that, if he looks after you said you don't want him to, whatever he 
> finds can't be shown to the jury.

true but tangential to the discussion.

>> Sure. But in the opinion in this country in the case of the US it is 
>> built into the system. If it happens here it generally is investigated 
>> to see how it did happen and how to prevent it.
> 
> Here too. That's what the whole pile of "appeals" is about.

it is not about appeals by persons, it is about investigation into the 
system.

>> The suggestion in the video is that the police does not need real 
>> evidence but can get convictions by twisting someones words into 
>> "evidence".
> 
> Admitting you committed the crime is, indeed, evidence. How much they 
> have to "twist" the words is something determined by the jury.

Who are not professionally trained to weight the evidence.

>> I think you are probably right as long as you are middle class white. 
>> I have heard some stories that not everybody is that lucky.
> 
> True. I'm sure you get hassled more with less money and more racism.
> 
>>> I think it's also the case there's a lot of places where if you're 
>>> foreign you're just screwed in the legal system too. :-)
>>
>> Yeah, so what?
> 
> Nothing. Just pointing out there's other places to avboid. :-)

Sure, I think I have visited some. I am glad nothing happened.
Remember a story of a friend whose backpack was stolen somewhere in such 
a place. He was still in the police station when they interviewed a 
possible suspect. He could hear him scream through the walls.

BTW I might not have repeated it here recently (or I might, memory even 
worse than it was when I was young), but I still think that if someone 
is not convinced it's own political and juridical system is better then 
that of another country, there is something wrong in education.

Post a reply to this message