3 ms·

maybe "parallel construction" is not the right term for this but I think the suggestion is, the investigators may have found the evidence through an illegal met

by evan_ 9y ago

maybe "parallel construction" is not the right term for this but I think the suggestion is, the investigators may have found the evidence through an illegal method that would not stand up in court and then made it seem like they arrived at the evidence using Palintir or some other legal method.

tedunangst 9y ago
But the article suggests the opposite? The prosecutor denied using Palantir in that case. That's not the way to whitewash some evidence.
- ineedasername 9y ago
  Not only that, but there's no indication that use of Palantir would have been illegal in any way in the case, only that if analysis leading to the conviction was obtained with Palantir, then it was withheld from the defendant. Conversely, they argue, if Palantir held no such analytical evidence, then its absence is proof of innocence. That later part if very much a stretch though, as it implies a level of sophistication, if not omniscience, that is not in reality possible.
- bigiain 9y ago
  Isn't that _exactly_ how parallel construction works? "No, your honour, we didn't use any of those grey-area or outright illegal surveillance technologies, we just got lucky in a random traffic stop. Again. Amazing how all these gang bosses drive around with tail lights out, isn't it?"
  - tedunangst 9y ago
    I could believe that they used illegal Palantir and retconned a search warrant. I could believe they did an illegal search and retconned a Palantir insight. But I'd like to know which claim is being made. Is Palantir the crime or the coverup?
    - bigiain 9y ago
      These bits of the article stand out to me: "Hickerson, who was sentenced to 100 years in prison, has accused prosecutors of suppressing analytic evidence obtained through the use of Palantir, arguing he had a right to view the evidence if his name surfaced as being affiliated with a gang, or if his name was absent from any analytic data related to 3-N-G." and 'Ken Daley, a spokesman for the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office, said in a statement Wednesday, however, that Palantir "played no role whatsoever in Mr. Hickerson's indictment and prosecution."' The defence is claiming the investigators used "analytic evidence" obtained from Palantir but are refusing to allow him to view it. The prosecution are claiming Palantir played no role - which is exactly what you'd expect if parallel construction were being used. Related - cynical me considers 'no role whatsoever in Mr. Hickerson's indictment and prosecution' to be exactly the sort of weasel-worded denial you'd use if you had used Palantir information to construct a story explaining how you'd indicted and prosecuted someone based on _other_ evidence that you wouldn't have known about without the unacknowledged Palantir-sourced evidence you'd want to hide from judicial scrutiny...

by evan_ 9y ago

tedunangst 9y ago

But the article suggests the opposite? The prosecutor denied using Palantir in that case. That's not the way to whitewash some evidence.

ineedasername 9y ago
Not only that, but there's no indication that use of Palantir would have been illegal in any way in the case, only that if analysis leading to the conviction was obtained with Palantir, then it was withheld from the defendant. Conversely, they argue, if Palantir held no such analytical evidence, then its absence is proof of innocence. That later part if very much a stretch though, as it implies a level of sophistication, if not omniscience, that is not in reality possible.
bigiain 9y ago
Isn't that _exactly_ how parallel construction works? "No, your honour, we didn't use any of those grey-area or outright illegal surveillance technologies, we just got lucky in a random traffic stop. Again. Amazing how all these gang bosses drive around with tail lights out, isn't it?"
- tedunangst 9y ago
  I could believe that they used illegal Palantir and retconned a search warrant. I could believe they did an illegal search and retconned a Palantir insight. But I'd like to know which claim is being made. Is Palantir the crime or the coverup?
  - bigiain 9y ago
    These bits of the article stand out to me: "Hickerson, who was sentenced to 100 years in prison, has accused prosecutors of suppressing analytic evidence obtained through the use of Palantir, arguing he had a right to view the evidence if his name surfaced as being affiliated with a gang, or if his name was absent from any analytic data related to 3-N-G." and 'Ken Daley, a spokesman for the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office, said in a statement Wednesday, however, that Palantir "played no role whatsoever in Mr. Hickerson's indictment and prosecution."' The defence is claiming the investigators used "analytic evidence" obtained from Palantir but are refusing to allow him to view it. The prosecution are claiming Palantir played no role - which is exactly what you'd expect if parallel construction were being used. Related - cynical me considers 'no role whatsoever in Mr. Hickerson's indictment and prosecution' to be exactly the sort of weasel-worded denial you'd use if you had used Palantir information to construct a story explaining how you'd indicted and prosecuted someone based on _other_ evidence that you wouldn't have known about without the unacknowledged Palantir-sourced evidence you'd want to hide from judicial scrutiny...