how to keep innocent people out of jail

[noonereal]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/crime/eyewitness-misidentification-wrongful-convictions-crime-procedures-new-jersey-pennsylvania-philadelphia-police-20180406.html

Positive id's has proven to be very inexact.

----------------------------

Just like the folks who think they "know themselves" when it comes to acting as they do.

As human's we are seldom accurate in understanding ourselves or what we saw or heard. 

Yet most of us think we do and insist we do. 

 

 

[ron169]

As a law enforcement officer and criminal investigator, we generally give very little weight to eye witnesses picking a person out of a lineup. The only time we really give weight to an ID is when they say they know the person intimately. I’ve only had one instance where the victim picked the correct guy out of a lineup, but we had other information that named him as a suspect.

[Horsefly]

34 minutes ago, ron169 said:

As a law enforcement officer and criminal investigator, we generally give very little weight to eye witnesses picking a person out of a lineup. The only time we really give weight to an ID is when they say they know the person intimately. I’ve only had one instance where the victim picked the correct guy out of a lineup, but we had other information that named him as a suspect.

Interesting...then why spend the time and energy using a lineup?

[World Citizen]

1 hour ago, ron169 said:

As a law enforcement officer and criminal investigator, we generally give very little weight to eye witnesses picking a person out of a lineup. The only time we really give weight to an ID is when they say they know the person intimately. I’ve only had one instance where the victim picked the correct guy out of a lineup, but we had other information that named him as a suspect.

A large # of people are in jail bc of the eye witness.  They may not be used in a lineup but they are used to convict people.  Is this not right?  

[Horsefly]

1 minute ago, World Citizen said:

A large # of people are in jail bc of the eye witness.  They may not be used in a lineup but they are used to convict people.  Is this not right?  

Yep!

[World Citizen]

1 minute ago, Horsefly said:

Yep!

I watched 60 minutes last night and they talked about how the judicial system is railroading people (most black and Brown) and have been for years.  This is not new news to me but probably is for some and probably discounted by many.  

And on CSPAN2 there was a program about an innocent guy who spent 30 years on death row and was finally released.  Very good program.  

Imho, this is a continuation of Jim Crow and keeping a large part of voters from voting, among other reasons. .

[ron169]

18 hours ago, World Citizen said:

A large # of people are in jail bc of the eye witness.  They may not be used in a lineup but they are used to convict people.  Is this not right?  

That can be misleading. If your wife calls 911 and the police get there and she has a black eye and a broken wrist and says you did it. Yeah, more than likely your going to jail for domestic violence and all of that based on an eye witness, but not based upon some face that eye witness testimony is worthless and people cant pick people out of line-ups reliably.

The reason i say misleading is this. Eye witness testimony is really useful in figuring out the who, what, where, and how. Where eye witness testimony loses its credibility it with unknown offender crimes. An example of that is, your house gets broken into and the neighbor say he saw a white guy on the front porch but doesn't know the white guy. Police are going to take that information, but are more interested in the minute details, tattoos, hair color, vehicle discription, types of rims, stickers on car etc etc etc. Now based off of all of that, plus any physical evidence found at the scene, might come up with a suspect. Once they have a suspect they may show the witness a line-up, but generally wont even do that. If they do show a line-up, the odds of getting a positive ID is minimal. In the 6 months Ive been an investigator, ive shown a line-up to 3 people. All three I already knew who the offender was, but was merely showing the line-up to add to the mountain of evidence I already had. One picked the guy out that robbed him at gun point. One wasn't able to pick out the guy that he had a 20 minute conversation with. One halfway picked out the guy that he talked to for 5 minutes after the guy burglarized his shed. The case was strong prior to getting the lineup in all three cases.

 

As an aside, the US supreme court has actually put about guidelines for line-ups. This is what has to occur. The subject that makes the line-up can not present the line-up to a witness. The case-agent can not present a line-up to a witness. Our personal way of doing things is that investigator gives the secretary a name. Secretary creates line-up and hands it to a different officer in a manilla folder. The second officer preferably doesn't even know who the suspect is. the second officer hands the manilla folder to the witness and steps back several steps.All this is done to keep from influencing the witnesses into picking the right person

[Horsefly]

17 minutes ago, ron169 said:

That can be misleading. If your wife calls 911 and the police get there and she has a black eye and a broken wrist and says you did it. Yeah, more than likely your going to jail for domestic violence and all of that based on an eye witness, but not based upon some face that eye witness testimony is worthless and people cant pick people out of line-ups reliably.

The reason i say misleading is this. Eye witness testimony is really useful in figuring out the who, what, where, and how. Where eye witness testimony loses its credibility it with unknown offender crimes. An example of that is, your house gets broken into and the neighbor say he saw a white guy on the front porch but doesn't know the white guy. Police are going to take that information, but are more interested in the minute details, tattoos, hair color, vehicle discription, types of rims, stickers on car etc etc etc. Now based off of all of that, plus any physical evidence found at the scene, might come up with a suspect. Once they have a suspect they may show the witness a line-up, but generally wont even do that. If they do show a line-up, the odds of getting a positive ID is minimal. In the 6 months Ive been an investigator, ive shown a line-up to 3 people. All three I already knew who the offender was, but was merely showing the line-up to add to the mountain of evidence I already had. One picked the guy out that robbed him at gun point. One wasn't able to pick out the guy that he had a 20 minute conversation with. One halfway picked out the guy that he talked to for 5 minutes after the guy burglarized his shed. The case was strong prior to getting the lineup in all three cases.

 

As an aside, the US supreme court has actually put about guidelines for line-ups. This is what has to occur. The subject that makes the line-up can not present the line-up to a witness. The case-agent can not present a line-up to a witness. Our personal way of doing things is that investigator gives the secretary a name. Secretary creates line-up and hands it to a different officer in a manilla folder. The second officer preferably doesn't even know who the suspect is. the second officer hands the manilla folder to the witness and steps back several steps.All this is done to keep from influencing the witnesses into picking the right person

But in those cases where the witness (unknown offender crime)  testimony lines up with who you believe to be the suspect, then they would be called on a witness stand.

[dbcaptiron]

1 hour ago, Horsefly said:

But in those cases where the witness (unknown offender crime)  testimony lines up with who you believe to be the suspect, then they would be called on a witness stand.

and if he could not be identified from a lineup....wouldn't that also be introduced by defense???

Wouldn't any 'mistaken odds' work in an actual criminals favor...

Agreed we should NEVER lock people up based on 'odds' ....but just sayin...for balance 

And I have no idea where you even think this is 'one sided' or 'one color dimensional'....FYI More minority (of some form) police officers in the cities near me...... than old KKK white guys....So what 'class' does that makeup favor...given your ASSUMED corruption...

 

[Horsefly]

7 minutes ago, dbcaptiron said:

and if he could not be identified from a lineup....wouldn't that also be introduced by defense???

Wouldn't any 'mistaken odds' work in an actual criminals favor...

Agreed we should NEVER lock people up based on 'odds' ....but just sayin...for balance 

And I have no idea where you even think this is 'one sided' or 'one color dimensional'....FYI More minority (of some form) police officers in the cities near me...... than old KKK white guys....So what 'class' does that makeup favor...given your ASSUMED corruption...

 

  My comment had NOTHING to do with color but I was going in the direction that if eye witness testimony is unreliable then it should be disregarded completely even when it aligns with the investigation's position.  Otherwise its confirmation bias...only a legitimate technique when it aligns with our view.

[ron169]

3 hours ago, Horsefly said:

But in those cases where the witness (unknown offender crime)  testimony lines up with who you believe to be the suspect, then they would be called on a witness stand.

They are going to be called on a witness stand regardless. Say the instance above about the neighbor seeing a burglary. Still going to call him and let him testify that it was a white male with bald head and tattoos, which match the person on trial. But defense also gets to point out that he cant say for sure that it was the exact same person.

 

Another thing to look at with Police is that the standard for an arrest is not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, its probable cause. Probable cause is facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable or prudent person to believe that a crime has been or is being committed. Thats a fancy way to say someone probably did it. If a cop, or regular citizen in a probable cause hearing, can show that someone probably did it, then they can be arrested. Now there is a big difference between an arrest and a conviction. Conviction required guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

https://www.versustexas.com/criminal/beyond-reasonable-doubt/

 

good article on the burdens of proof

 

[maxchoboian]

@ron169  -- a little different topic (this is Ask the Investigator, right?)... what percentage of people can successfully work with a police artist and get a good sketch of a suspect? I can't imagine helping someone sketch a family member, let alone someone who may have bull rushed me, or committed a crime against me in some other way. Do the artists make it easier than it seems, or are just some people (like me) a waste of time trying to get some sort of picture of a suspect?

[ron169]

I've never met a forensic artist. That being said, my captain has used the GBI artist a couple times. I think she is retired now and her daughter has taken over. It's actually a pretty interesting process that is done. Marla, the one that worked for the GBi is the one that did Eric Robert Rudolph sketch.

 

Here's an article on her, definitely a good read

 

https://www.wabe.org/gbi-forensic-art-passed-down-georgia-family/

[ron169]

5 hours ago, Drummer61 said:

What about non compliance, talking back, fast moves, resisting, running,pointing objects that resemble a gun, sword, bat,broken bottle,razor or a knife???  I say shoot them if you feel threatened..

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/

 

Read that for supreme court standard

[dbcaptiron]

1 minute ago, ron169 said:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/

 

Read that for supreme court standard

Dayum posting with accuracy and links....KUDOS

and thanks for the insightfully refreshing posts... 

[ron169]

1 hour ago, Drummer61 said:

I did and asked what your opinion was...Not a bloviated legal opinion, that appears open to "decisions made by police"...and or,  may hold no legal precedent today in the light of illegal invaders and terrorists..Cops are being castigated and many don't know what they go through...I know two...

My opinion is this. I went to the Academy in a time when we are taught the force continuum and needed ability opportunity and jeopardy to use deadly force. That standard has changed with Graham v Conner. What the courts have done is basically said this. How can we as judges judge a peace officer accurately unless we view things as a reasonable peace officer would. Peace officer have to make decisions in the blink of an eye, so why judge them from the view of someone sitting comfortable in a chair with hind sight. 

 

The greatest irony of the last few years to me is this. We have lambasted and vilified peace officers in the news, congressional hearing and social media to the point that the people that chose to be peace officers 10, 20, and 30 years ago aren't signing up. As such, we have a whole new generation of snow flake cops, a percentage of which shouldn't even have a badge and a gun. Gone are the days where you can turn away bad applicants. One, there are too many spots to fill and two there are so many liabilities and federal guidelines that if they meet the minimum standards you have to hire them. What is the outcome, more shootings. Are they justified according to theUS supreme court standard? Yes... Would they have happened 30 years ago, nope, at least not all. Liberals have never been good with unintended consequences though.

 

But what do I know, right? 

[DevilDog]

1 hour ago, ron169 said:

 

 

The greatest irony of the last few years to me is this. We have lambasted and vilified peace officers in the news, congressional hearing and social media to the point that the people that chose to be peace officers 10, 20, and 30 years ago aren't signing up. As such, we have a whole new generation of snow flake cops, a percentage of which shouldn't even have a badge and a gun. Gone are the days where you can turn away bad applicants. One, there are too many spots to fill and two there are so many liabilities and federal guidelines that if they meet the minimum standards you have to hire them. What is the outcome, more shootings. Are they justified according to theUS supreme court standard? Yes... Would they have happened 30 years ago, nope, at least not all. Liberals have never been good with unintended consequences though.

 

But what do I know, right? 

Interesting will you feel the same way about the FBI you know how they are being lambasted vilified by the right especially right news organizations, hearings, being fired and social media (PRESIDENT)  to the point that people no longer trust the FBI (RIGHT WINGERS AT LEAST).  

Conservatives have never been good with unintended consequences either.  Irony indeed sir.  

[ron169]

18 minutes ago, DevilDog said:

Interesting will you feel the same way about the FBI you know how they are being lambasted vilified by the right especially right news organizations, hearings, being fired and social media (PRESIDENT)  to the point that people no longer trust the FBI (RIGHT WINGERS AT LEAST).  

Conservatives have never been good with unintended consequences either.  Irony indeed sir.  

The feds are the feds. To me it's rather ridiculous what is going on right now. Either you want them to investigate let you don't. At the end of the day, if probable cause didn't exist, a judge wouldn't have signed a warrant to search the lawyers office

[DevilDog]

9 minutes ago, ron169 said:

The feds are the feds. To me it's rather ridiculous what is going on right now. Either you want them to investigate let you don't. At the end of the day, if probable cause didn't exist, a judge wouldn't have signed a warrant to search the lawyers office

Thank you sir.  The Judge that allowed it is a Trump appointee.  By the way I am Pro-Law Enforcement and I think it is ridiculous to believe this is some Grand Conspiracy by some secret group in the FBI it's as stupid when something controversial happens with local police departments and the whole department gets branded that way.   Plus I think if you let a Conservative hide all his transgressions you will find a Liberal and if you let a Liberal have Control over War and the Environment you will find a Conservative.  One loves an unborn Child till he is Born then he is on his own.  The other don't care about the Unborn but once Born they don't want to let him go.  One believes in death before Birth and the other doesn't.  Yet same kid turns 18 commits a crime gets a death Sentence and now they magically flip their views. 

If you are innocent why would you care about an investigation. If McKinney PD breaks into my Home and declare that I am a drug Dealer and an investigation is being had.  I say have at it.  

[ron169]

Then you have folks like me that could care less if someone is gay, or what a woman does with her body, but does believe in an eye for an eye and the rule of law... I've always said I'm fiscal conservative and social liberal... Except for guns, love my guns.

 

 

The one thing I will say about this FBI investigation is that it had taken way too long. If they don't have it by now they never will

[DevilDog]

7 minutes ago, ron169 said:

Then you have folks like me that could care less if someone is gay, or what a woman does with her body, but does believe in an eye for an eye and the rule of law... I've always said I'm fiscal conservative and social liberal... Except for guns, love my guns.

 

 

The one thing I will say about this FBI investigation is that it had taken way too long. If they don't have it by now they never will

I'm in agreement with most of this.  I don't have a Vagina and since when I need to borrow one I need permission never felt it was my right to dictate what someone does with theirs that sort of raping by other means IMHO.   Funny you have to ask her to let you put yourself in her but tell her what she must let out.  I love my Weapons as well and also fiscal Conservative and Social Liberal (That really is limited Gov't)

I disagree though my Law Enforcement is Military and yours Civilian.  The Fed's have conducted many Investigations for multiple years before brining indictments.  I am good with that part of it.  They also swing about 95% conviction.  If they are messing with you mostly like you deserve to be messed with. 

[HawgGoneIt]

Ron bringing the heat in this one!

 

[noonereal]

8 hours ago, ron169 said:

The one thing I will say about this FBI investigation is that it had taken way too long. If they don't have it by now they never will

Not true, Ron. 

 

[ron169]

1 hour ago, noonereal said:

Not true, Ron. 

 

I guess a lot of my opinions are because of the feds I’ve dealt with. In 14 years of law enforcement, I’ve met one FBI agent, and he was teaching us not to racially profile after the Ferguson incident. 

 

How much did the clinton investigation cost and what was the outcome? Talking about the Ken Starr investigation of bill

[dbcaptiron]

2 hours ago, noonereal said:

Not true, Ron. 

 

Yes nooner calling out others OPINIONS as false....when he does not like them....classic dipshit intellectual dishonesty...

watch out Ron... next you will get  a ‘conjecture lecture’  based on nooner’s ‘made up facts’ ....and then you will be told that you have no right or ability  to disagree with them ....

nooner the master of made up psychology who can not even recognize his own