Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
RFTH: Old murder cases looked into because of detective's conduct
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Jeff Gersten
May 12, 2013, 8:27:25 AM5/12/13
to
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/nyregion/doubts-about-detective-haunt-50-murder-cases.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Let's think back to Law & Order.
Lennie ges a false confession after threatening an innocent suspect by
telling him he'll inform everyone in jail that he raped and murdered a
very young girl. This was done after McCoy told him to get a confession
"by any means".
Lennie tells the squeegie guy to pick #5 in the line-up. McCoy's comment
to Angie Harmon is "you're in the big leagues now". Coaching on line-ups
is one of the specific complaints in the article.
Fontana uses the toilet to waterboard a suspect.
The etective in the article says part of his technique is to pray wih
the suspect. That's what Ray did with the woman who claimed her baby was
missing, but really had murdered her.
The detective in question brags of lying about having found physical
evidence like fingerprints. The L&O detectives do that constantly.
Let's think back to Law & Order.
Lennie ges a false confession after threatening an innocent suspect by
telling him he'll inform everyone in jail that he raped and murdered a
very young girl. This was done after McCoy told him to get a confession
"by any means".
Lennie tells the squeegie guy to pick #5 in the line-up. McCoy's comment
to Angie Harmon is "you're in the big leagues now". Coaching on line-ups
is one of the specific complaints in the article.
Fontana uses the toilet to waterboard a suspect.
The etective in the article says part of his technique is to pray wih
the suspect. That's what Ray did with the woman who claimed her baby was
missing, but really had murdered her.
The detective in question brags of lying about having found physical
evidence like fingerprints. The L&O detectives do that constantly.
Porter Smith
May 12, 2013, 11:08:04 AM5/12/13
to
JeffG...@webtv.net (Jeff Gersten) wrote in
news:19044-51...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net:
The assumption is that if you are innocent you know the cop must be lying
so the lie can't hurt you. Unfortunately many people believe the cops are
perfectly willing to manufacture evidence, decide thay are screwed so
they might as well cut a deal.
news:19044-51...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net:
> The detective in question brags of lying about having found physical
> evidence like fingerprints. The L&O detectives do that constantly.
The courts have ruled that tactic is OK.
> evidence like fingerprints. The L&O detectives do that constantly.
The assumption is that if you are innocent you know the cop must be lying
so the lie can't hurt you. Unfortunately many people believe the cops are
perfectly willing to manufacture evidence, decide thay are screwed so
they might as well cut a deal.
David Johnston
May 12, 2013, 2:20:05 PM5/12/13
to
Martin Edwards
May 13, 2013, 2:19:04 AM5/13/13
to
--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman
Jeff Gersten
May 13, 2013, 5:38:45 AM5/13/13
to
does not make it ethically correct.
What's the next logical step? Since you know the defendant is guilty,
why not put the "false evidence " before the court. Think of the episode
The Myth of Fingerprints.
Porter Smith
May 13, 2013, 8:45:41 AM5/13/13
to
JeffG...@webtv.net (Jeff Gersten) wrote in news:24348-5190B4A5-67
@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net:
to let him search her car becuase he told her he had a witness that saw
her put stolen goods in the trunk. If she surrendered the stolen property
to him he would return it to the rightful owner and give her a ticket.
She agreed, he found the poperty and arrested her for theft.
The prosecutor explained how the cop did nothing illegal. I pointed out
that since the cop is clearly willing to lie, why should we beleive
anything else he said, specifically that she agreed to the search, or
that the recovered property was stolen. The prosecutor said that it was
not our job to determine if the evidencec was admissable, but we could
believe the cop or not. We ended up incicting the woman but the vote was
not unanimous.
> What's the next logical step? Since you know the defendant is guilty,
> why not put the "false evidence " before the court. Think of the
episode
> The Myth of Fingerprints.
When evidence is presented at trial, someone swears under oath that it is
factual, hasn't been tampered with and was collected properly. Our
justice system operates under the assumption that people under oath don't
lie. If you are wealthy enough (O J Simpson leaps to mind) you can hire
your own experts to challenge the evidence and/or witness. If not, you go
to jail.
@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net:
> I understand the courts have ruled it to be a legal tactic, but that
> does not make it ethically correct.
>
I agree. When I was on a grand jury a cop testified that he got a suspect
> does not make it ethically correct.
>
to let him search her car becuase he told her he had a witness that saw
her put stolen goods in the trunk. If she surrendered the stolen property
to him he would return it to the rightful owner and give her a ticket.
She agreed, he found the poperty and arrested her for theft.
The prosecutor explained how the cop did nothing illegal. I pointed out
that since the cop is clearly willing to lie, why should we beleive
anything else he said, specifically that she agreed to the search, or
that the recovered property was stolen. The prosecutor said that it was
not our job to determine if the evidencec was admissable, but we could
believe the cop or not. We ended up incicting the woman but the vote was
not unanimous.
> What's the next logical step? Since you know the defendant is guilty,
> why not put the "false evidence " before the court. Think of the
episode
> The Myth of Fingerprints.
factual, hasn't been tampered with and was collected properly. Our
justice system operates under the assumption that people under oath don't
lie. If you are wealthy enough (O J Simpson leaps to mind) you can hire
your own experts to challenge the evidence and/or witness. If not, you go
to jail.
theget
May 13, 2013, 12:57:50 PM5/13/13
to
On May 12, 2:20 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 5/12/2013 6:27 AM, Jeff Gersten wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/nyregion/doubts-about-detective-hau...
> On 5/12/2013 6:27 AM, Jeff Gersten wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Let's think back to Law & Order.
>
> > Lennie ges a false confession after threatening an innocent suspect by
> > telling him he'll inform everyone in jail that he raped and murdered a
> > very young girl. This was done after McCoy told him to get a confession
> > "by any means".
>
> > Lennie tells the squeegie guy to pick #5 in the line-up. McCoy's comment
> > to Angie Harmon is "you're in the big leagues now". Coaching on line-ups
> > is one of the specific complaints in the article.
>
> > Fontana uses the toilet to waterboard a suspect.
>
> > The etective in the article says part of his technique is to pray wih
> > the suspect. That's what Ray did with the woman who claimed her baby was
> > missing, but really had murdered her.
>
> > The detective in question brags of lying about having found physical
> > evidence like fingerprints. The L&O detectives do that constantly.
>
> Lying to suspects about evidence is SOP. Not disallowed at all.
I think there is a limit to that. I read somewhere that you can't
> > Let's think back to Law & Order.
>
> > Lennie ges a false confession after threatening an innocent suspect by
> > telling him he'll inform everyone in jail that he raped and murdered a
> > very young girl. This was done after McCoy told him to get a confession
> > "by any means".
>
> > Lennie tells the squeegie guy to pick #5 in the line-up. McCoy's comment
> > to Angie Harmon is "you're in the big leagues now". Coaching on line-ups
> > is one of the specific complaints in the article.
>
> > Fontana uses the toilet to waterboard a suspect.
>
> > The etective in the article says part of his technique is to pray wih
> > the suspect. That's what Ray did with the woman who claimed her baby was
> > missing, but really had murdered her.
>
> > The detective in question brags of lying about having found physical
> > evidence like fingerprints. The L&O detectives do that constantly.
>
> Lying to suspects about evidence is SOP. Not disallowed at all.
tell a suspect that the evidence will convict someone else, a loved
one of theirs, so they had better confess to save the one they care
about.
But I don't know if this is an ethical limitation or a legal one.
theget
May 13, 2013, 12:59:32 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 8:45 am, Porter Smith <my_port_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> . The prosecutor said that it was
> not our job to determine if the evidencec was admissable,
Isn't the prosecutor the grand jury's 'legal advisor' and not a judge?
> . The prosecutor said that it was
> not our job to determine if the evidencec was admissable,
David Johnston
May 13, 2013, 2:04:48 PM5/13/13
to
suspect (generally) knows whether or not it did something, but it can't
know for sure that a loved one didn't leave a fingerprint somewhere, so
lying about evidence against the loved one isn't much different from
threatening to shoot it.
Porter Smith
May 13, 2013, 2:41:09 PM5/13/13
to
theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in news:89a77a57-4305-4132-ad70-
cacae5...@j7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:
Yes. And he advised us that we donlt get to decide if evidence is
admissable.
We routinely heard evidence that would not be admissable in a trial. We
often heard a detective testify what a witness told him, or one detective
read from another detective's notes -- clearly hearsay.
cacae5...@j7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:
admissable.
We routinely heard evidence that would not be admissable in a trial. We
often heard a detective testify what a witness told him, or one detective
read from another detective's notes -- clearly hearsay.
David Johnston
May 13, 2013, 4:12:57 PM5/13/13
to
theget
May 13, 2013, 5:27:58 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 2:41 pm, Porter Smith <my_port_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in news:89a77a57-4305-4132-ad70-
> cacae5d40...@j7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:
> theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in news:89a77a57-4305-4132-ad70-
>
> > On May 13, 8:45 am, Porter Smith <my_port_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> . The prosecutor said that it was
> >> not our job to determine if the evidencec was admissable,
>
> > Isn't the prosecutor the grand jury's 'legal advisor' and not a judge?
>
> Yes. And he advised us that we donlt get to decide if evidence is
> admissable.
>
> We routinely heard evidence that would not be admissable in a trial. We
> often heard a detective testify what a witness told him, or one detective
> read from another detective's notes -- clearly hearsay.
I think lot's of things are admissible before a grand jury that
> > On May 13, 8:45 am, Porter Smith <my_port_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> . The prosecutor said that it was
> >> not our job to determine if the evidencec was admissable,
>
> > Isn't the prosecutor the grand jury's 'legal advisor' and not a judge?
>
> Yes. And he advised us that we donlt get to decide if evidence is
> admissable.
>
> We routinely heard evidence that would not be admissable in a trial. We
> often heard a detective testify what a witness told him, or one detective
> read from another detective's notes -- clearly hearsay.
wouldn't be allowed at trial.
Think of the evidence as being the condiments on the ham sandwich.
Porter Smith
May 13, 2013, 11:37:09 PM5/13/13
to
theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in
news:8f2fd8ff-5ce4-4ac3...@g9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
The grand jury's job is to decide if there is sufficient evidence to
proceed. It is perfectly acceptable for the prosecutor to present the
evidence informally. For example, a single cop may present all the
evidence that was gathered from multiple sources. For example we heard
lots of drug caes and they all included a lab report, usually read by the
arresting detective. We could have called the lab tech to testify but
there was no reason. If the case ever went to trial, I am sure that tech
would have testified and been cross examined.
news:8f2fd8ff-5ce4-4ac3...@g9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
proceed. It is perfectly acceptable for the prosecutor to present the
evidence informally. For example, a single cop may present all the
evidence that was gathered from multiple sources. For example we heard
lots of drug caes and they all included a lab report, usually read by the
arresting detective. We could have called the lab tech to testify but
there was no reason. If the case ever went to trial, I am sure that tech
would have testified and been cross examined.
Martin Edwards
May 14, 2013, 1:39:28 AM5/14/13
to
ham sandwiches were indicted for not being kosher.
Martin Edwards
May 14, 2013, 1:37:32 AM5/14/13
to
they were guilty. In fact, though the patrols are usually of good
quality, the standard of detection is, in general, far lower than the
States.
Martin Edwards
May 14, 2013, 1:40:12 AM5/14/13
to
theget
May 14, 2013, 10:09:40 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 1:37 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13/05/2013 10:38, Jeff Gersten wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > my_port_2...@yahoo.com (Porter Smith) wrote:
> On 13/05/2013 10:38, Jeff Gersten wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > JeffGers...@webtv.net (Jeff Gersten) wrote in
> >news:19044-51...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net:
>
> >>> The detective in question brags of lying >>about having found physical
> > evidence like
> >>> fingerprints. The L&O detectives do that
> >>> constantly.
>
> >> The courts have ruled that tactic is OK.
>
> >> The assumption is that if you are innocent you
> >> know the cop must be lying so the lie can't
> >> hurt you. Unfortunately many people believe
> >> the cops are perfectly willing to manufacture
> >> evidence, decide thay are screwed so they
> >> might as well cut a deal.
>
> > I understand the courts have ruled it to be a legal tactic, but that
> > does not make it ethically correct.
>
> > What's the next logical step? Since you know the defendant is guilty,
> > why not put the "false evidence " before the court. Think of the episode
> > The Myth of Fingerprints.
>
> Innocent people were hanged in this country because the police "knew"
> they were guilty. In fact, though the patrols are usually of good
> quality, the standard of detection is, in general, far lower than the
> States.
I wonder if that's why the UK strayed from the old standards, changing
>
> >>> The detective in question brags of lying >>about having found physical
> > evidence like
> >>> fingerprints. The L&O detectives do that
> >>> constantly.
>
> >> The courts have ruled that tactic is OK.
>
> >> The assumption is that if you are innocent you
> >> know the cop must be lying so the lie can't
> >> hurt you. Unfortunately many people believe
> >> the cops are perfectly willing to manufacture
> >> evidence, decide thay are screwed so they
> >> might as well cut a deal.
>
> > I understand the courts have ruled it to be a legal tactic, but that
> > does not make it ethically correct.
>
> > What's the next logical step? Since you know the defendant is guilty,
> > why not put the "false evidence " before the court. Think of the episode
> > The Myth of Fingerprints.
>
> Innocent people were hanged in this country because the police "knew"
> they were guilty. In fact, though the patrols are usually of good
> quality, the standard of detection is, in general, far lower than the
> States.
how silence is treated. That in turn makes it easier to get
convictions, leading to a need for less rigor when trying to solve
cases, which leads to fewer convictions, which leads to trying to
compensate by getting the legal system to change it's ways to make
easier convictions which leads to a vicious circle.
theget
May 14, 2013, 10:09:54 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 1:40 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13/05/2013 22:27, theget wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 2:41 pm, Porter Smith <my_port_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in news:89a77a57-4305-4132-ad70-
> >> cacae5d40...@j7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>> On May 13, 8:45 am, Porter Smith <my_port_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> . The prosecutor said that it was
> >>>> not our job to determine if the evidencec was admissable,
>
> >>> Isn't the prosecutor the grand jury's 'legal advisor' and not a judge?
>
> >> Yes. And he advised us that we donlt get to decide if evidence is
> >> admissable.
>
> >> We routinely heard evidence that would not be admissable in a trial. We
> >> often heard a detective testify what a witness told him, or one detective
> >> read from another detective's notes -- clearly hearsay.
>
> > I think lot's of things are admissible before a grand jury that
> > wouldn't be allowed at trial.
>
> > Think of the evidence as being the condiments on the ham sandwich.
>
> As long as they don't come from Dune.
I'm stumped.
> On 13/05/2013 22:27, theget wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 2:41 pm, Porter Smith <my_port_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in news:89a77a57-4305-4132-ad70-
> >> cacae5d40...@j7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>> On May 13, 8:45 am, Porter Smith <my_port_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> . The prosecutor said that it was
> >>>> not our job to determine if the evidencec was admissable,
>
> >>> Isn't the prosecutor the grand jury's 'legal advisor' and not a judge?
>
> >> Yes. And he advised us that we donlt get to decide if evidence is
> >> admissable.
>
> >> We routinely heard evidence that would not be admissable in a trial. We
> >> often heard a detective testify what a witness told him, or one detective
> >> read from another detective's notes -- clearly hearsay.
>
> > I think lot's of things are admissible before a grand jury that
> > wouldn't be allowed at trial.
>
> > Think of the evidence as being the condiments on the ham sandwich.
>
> As long as they don't come from Dune.
Martin Edwards
May 16, 2013, 6:17:25 AM5/16/13
to
0 new messages