6 ms·
You still don't know that's the reason he got caught. The real reason could be something else, and this is just "parallel reconstruction". "Parallel reconstru
by fsk 11y ago
You still don't know that's the reason he got caught. The real reason could be something else, and this is just "parallel reconstruction".
"Parallel reconstruction" means that you catch someone using an "illegal" information source. You then monitor him, wait for him to make a mistake, and then that's the "official" excuse for how you caught him.
The police who testify in the case aren't even lying, because they only have the "parallel reconstucted" evidence and not the illegal evidence that was the original lead.
- braythwayt 11y agoSorry to see you were downvoted. Parallel reconstruction has completely undermined my faith in what the police say was their procedure for gathering evidence.
- fsk 11y agoIt is abuse for someone to use "downvote" to mean "I disagree".
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- classicsnoot 11y agoInappropriate? yes. Rude? yes. Indicative of churlish immaturity? yes. Abuse? Nope.
- fragmede 11y agoYou also have to examine the evidence used. It's possible the police got lucky with Silk Road's 1 Ross Ulbricht's deleted traceable email address, but that I don't believe, and strongly believe parallel reconstruction. The USPS logging IP addresses on a webservice they run? Absolutely believable.
- LLWM 11y agoWhy does it matter if this is really why he was caught? The facts are that he was caught, and there was a legal way for him to have been caught. That's why parallel reconstruction is acceptable in the first place.
- smtddr 11y ago>>That's why parallel reconstruction is acceptable in the first place. That's news to me. Does anyone find parallel reconstruction acceptable in any situation whatsoever? HN gave me the impression that it's never good and a strong indicator of corruption and/or lying. Am I wrong?
- wtallis 11y agoAll the rules of evidence ultimately stem from two goals: to discourage law enforcement officers from harassing members of the public by violating their freedoms and privacy, and to discourage law enforcement officers from unfairly or prematurely narrowing the field of suspects by focusing on the first piece of suspicious evidence they can get their hands on. (More generally: don't punish wrong guy, and do punish right guy.) But once the deterrent has failed and the evidence has been collected, you end up with a known criminal you are unable to prosecute and that's a bitter pill to swallow, especially if the criminal is very dangerous and the cops' mistake was minor. The deterrence will never be 100% effective no matter how we blindly cling to that tactic. The ideal course of action would probably be to admit all the evidence and then prosecute both the suspect and the bad cops for their respective crimes, but that's cost-prohibitive and for minor offenses even being prosecuted in the first place is often too much punishment. So as usual we end up with the courts accruing increasingly complex justifications to strike a compromise where one is needed, but the compromise the courts manage to justify isn't always a good or sensible compromise.
- fsk 11y agoThe problem in our system is that, when the police break the rules and get caught, the only penalty is that the evidence is excluded. "Parallel reconstruction" lets police evade even that tiny penalty for breaking the rules of evidence. Really, there should be some personal liability for the police when they do something illegal to catch a criminal. That change isn't going to happen. Also, "Making and selling certain chemicals." is something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place.