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.

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?

> 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.

> 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, then 
it's a matter of getting the jury to believe the cop. If the accused can 
show the cop lied (which is happening more and more with cell phone cameras 
and such), they can get off.

>>> What he is saying is basically that if the police officer *thinks* 
>>> you are guilty anything you say can and probably will be used to get 
>>> you convicted.
>>
>> Right. Yes?
> 
> Nothing, apart from the fact that I was born in Amsterdam and still work 
> there might just be enough to assume that I do use drugs and from there 
> that I am the most likely person to sell them... Or that from the four 
> persons that were possibly present at a murder scene the black guy is 
> the most likely suspect. Or that the person that said sorry at some 
> point after an accident must be the guilty party. Or...

Sure. There needs to be some evidence presented.  If there are four people 
at the murder scene, then the defense says "there were four people there, 
and no reason not to doubt my client did it."

>>> Unless you can definitely prove that you didn't do it.
>>
>> Um, no.
>>
>> I was on a jury. The police in the unmarked car watch the man break 
>> the window of the car, reach in, take the jacket on the seat, put it 
>> on, and cross the street. It was hours of arguing with at least a 
>> couple of the people on the jury that he really was guilty.
> 
> Interesting, what were the reasons they gave for thinking he was not 
> guilty?

Oh, one guy said "Maybe he found the coat in the doorway and was cold." 
There wasn't any reason, really. It just took a while.

> 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.

What the police do, and what the courts do, are two different things 
completely.

> I thank 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.

In the state where I grew up, the cops had to present two forms of proof you 
are speeding. Admitting you're speeding can be one of them. The cop watching 
you speeding can be the other. If he just sees you and you STFU, he only has 
one form of proof.  (Another form can be radar gun, following you at the 
same speed, etc.)

>> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message