6 ms·
Junk Arson Science Sent Claude Garrett to Prison for Murder 25 Years Ago
- chris_wot 8y agoSounds like the original investigator knows he sent an innocent man to prison. What an absolutely horrible human being.
- jacobush 8y agoI think it sounds like he believes firmly in his own instincts, and those instincts point out mr Garret.
- DiabloD3 8y agoIf he "believes in his own instincts," he should be fired and not given a job that requires any level of intelligence or acumen. Gut feelings almost invariably lead to witch hunts. Garrett was the witch this time around, how many others have also been hunted by this guy?
- edoo 8y agoHe was an arson investigator. Instincts should be left out of final conclusions. If you don't have hard scientific proof you don't have evidence.
- chris_wot 8y agoYou don't convict on "instincts".
- bilbo0s 8y ago>... his own instincts ... Wow. We're putting people in prison at 40 to 50 grand a year because, well, "instinct".
- acct1771 8y agoIt's the people receiving that yearly rate that are the true criminals; still, drinks all around.
- jacobush 8y agoOf course, that is very damning for the fire investigator. Maybe he is the one who should be behind bars for willfully ignoring evidence.
- draw_down 8y agoWelcome to our justice system!
- Pica_soO 8y agoMany horrible things happen, because a lot of human beings believe in there gut instincts to be always right. The enlightenment only won on the surface, but in daily life, the magic and mystics rule unchallenged still. And it seems, all the education in the world can not fix that - or is not even attempt to fix that. How would you even name such a subject at school? Species-wide Training for Self Recognition of inherited Mental-Handicaps? How do you keep this going after you trained for it? Imagine you are a medical doctor in a medieval town, specializing on hand surgery. Usually you have to amputate, because you lack the knowledge. But even when not, you can not repair machinery you do know nothing about. The city church knows about your thirst to learn, and has assigned you a watchmen, preventing the dissection of amputates or the dead. But he can not stop you from injuring yourself, to find out what works how. So here you sit in your study, with a sharpened knife and nothing to dampen your situational awareness. You make a incission. It hurts, but you find out how muscles look and how they flex. Every cut, makes you less of the person you where. You will never be a doctor again, because you destroy a tool in the prcoess. You hurt your family, financially and by endangering your well beeing. You might end up a cripple, with nothing to show for it but bloodied notes. So what if enlightenment is not some glorified endeavor, bringing us all toys like santa brings the presents? What if it hurts? Like really permanently hurt and scar. What if that knowledge does not lead to good, but to headhacks for the mighty? Should you, would you continue? If you had a retarded kid, that is happy, and might spend a happy and productive live in its little corner - would you tell that kid the truth? How would you do that?
- trhway 8y ago> the trial prosecutor had concealed a police report in which a key witness said the back-room door had been unlocked. Never let the truth get in the way of a conviction.
- nerdponx 8y agoIs this even technically illegal? Is framing someone a crime?
- tyingq 8y agoNot a lawyer, but I believe this generally falls under "obstruction of justice" in the US. It appears to be a felony in most jurisdictions. Probably tricky to prosecute though, since you would have to prove intent versus, say, incompetence. The penalties seem pretty low too, and not correlated with the potential damage.
- Symmetry 8y agoUS judges have decided that judges and prosecutors have complete legal immunity for anything they may do in pursuit of their duties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_immunity
- merpnderp 8y agoAnd this immunity was created out of nothing, backed by nothing. One of the front runners for president in 2020 literally argued in an appeals court that her prosecutors should have been allowed to fabricate and withhold evidence during prosecutions. Instead of being a pariah and banished from public life, there's a decent chance she'll bring this same mentality to the presidency.
- jki275 8y agoI'm assuming you must be talking about Kamala Harris? Do you have a link?
- garyfirestorm 8y agoWhat processes need to fall in place to systematically reevaluate all the old arson cases? This seems like a data problem that needs indexing and reevaluating. I know it's not that simple, but there has to be a way to undo bad decisions.
- boomboomsubban 8y agoIt won't happen. If we reevaluate arson cases, people will push for a wide reevaluation of other convictions based on types of evidence that have been shown to be flawed. This includes hair analysis, fingerprint analysis, bite mark analysis, bullet analysis, and eyewitness accounts. Too much added work and a truth too painful to acknowledge.
- DubiousPusher 8y agoAlso, the criminal Justice system is notoriously confident and resilient to self examination. It's amazing what it can take to get even one person a new trial.
- cavanasm 8y agoI think a lot of the "confidence" is taken essentially philosophically too. A lot of people who are willing to work on the prosecution side firmly believe in some type of "procedural justice", the notion that a verdict reached by properly following all legal processes, even if factually incorrect, is a just verdict. There's a big "assuming the process is fair" part of that belief, but those people don't go in thinking the process is unfair, and then also contributing to the process being unfair.
- sjg007 8y agoEven DNA analysis can be flawed.
- boomboomsubban 8y agoWhile it is not perfect, the other examples have been shown to basically be fraudulent. Different levels of flawed.
- ctack 8y agoState sanctioned violence in the form of imprisonment being enforced by individuals whose egos can't accept that methods change. I find it unsettling to say the least. But then I guess actors like agent Cooper need to hide behind fortresses of self assurance or else they'd never be able to testify against anyone. How else do you take life away from someone? You need the utmost assurance in your methods.
- edoo 8y agoHorrifying. The entire legal system is supposed to be based on the concept that it is better to let the guilty walk than destroy an innocent person. Instead of evidence they used federal agents as expert witnesses providing evidence free accusation. It is almost like prosecutors pursue cases based on the likelihood of winning instead of actual evidence.
- nvahalik 8y ago> The entire legal system is supposed to be based on the concept that it is better to let the guilty walk than destroy an innocent person. This is true if you believe that there is a final justice. However, in a secularizing society that doesn’t believe in God or final judgement, if you want justice it has to be here and now since it will not come any other way.
- nerdponx 8y agoOn the contrary, how can you rationalize locking up an innocent person unless you believe they will be redeemed at The End?
- sandworm101 8y agoTrue. Too many people accept the evil of false convictions because they believe in life eternal, that unjust suffering during life will be rewarded afterwards. I'd rather get things right now than roll those dice.
- bendotero 8y agoI get the logic here. But in many religions god is the source of justice. Got no idea if OP is a Christian or not but there are plenty of judicial proceedings in portions of the Bible that lots of Christians overlook, particularly about the requirement for at the least two or three witnesses (which doesn't necessitate eyewitness but at least two credible witnesses) before a conviction takes place. There is also plenty of case law in the Hebrew scriptures about not imprisoning or punishing someone if there is no evidence (e.g. establishment of sanctuary cities for accused persons to go to while a just trial is pending).
- OskarS 8y agoIf you haven't read The New Yorker story about Cameron Todd Willingham, a man (almost certainly innocent) who was executed in Texas based on junk arson science, you should rectify that as soon as possible: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire
- DubiousPusher 8y agoAnd it gets worse. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/08/03/fresh-doubts-over-a-texas-execution/?utm_term=.d0f937abb1d5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/08/03/fresh-...
- Symmetry 8y agoNot the most horrifying abuse of forensics I've read. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33296669-the-cadaver-king-and-the-country-dentist https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33296669-the-cadaver-kin...
- alexhutcheson 8y agoAmazing book. It's shocking how much of the forensic "science" that the media has conditioned us to see as infallible is actually mostly junk. Even fingerprint analysis has less than stellar experimental track record: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#Criticism.
- cultus 8y agoForensic science doesn't need to be good science. It just needs to impress juries.
- sjg007 8y agoThe methods should at least be peer reviewed.
- JackFr 8y agoYou know what they used to call 'junk science'? 'Science'. Apart from the particular injustice of this and other cases, it would behoove everyone to be a little more circumspect and humble about what we believe we know.
- rtkwe 8y agoThe problem is there's a harsh disincentive for admitting that in any criminal 'science' because doing anything other than pretending the science is perfect and infallible would undermine the criminal case.