How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars
1–10 of 91 posts
Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars
#2Profiling, like much of "criminal science" such as Arson Investigation is a large part unsubstantiated bullshit. It's amazing how poorly regulated all of it is and how many innocent people are in prison, or executed, because of it.
Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars
#3Worth noting that the submitter of this story, user ClintEhrlich, played a main role in freeing the wrongly-convicted man. He posted about it on HN a couple years back, in a highly upvoted and discussed thread (500+ upvotes, 200+ comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12010760
Edit: it's an ironic coincidence that this follow-up feature was published on the same day of the news of O.J. Simpson's parole: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oj-simpson-parole-board-...
Simpson is being paroled for a robbery conviction 9 years ago but of course his most famous run-in with the law was when he was acquitted of double-murder despite a huge amount of forensic evidence linking him to the homicides (he later lost a civil suit, which has a lower standard of evidence).
In the case described by the OP, the jury voted to convict in the total absence of physical, forensic evidence. It's astonishing that this profiler's beliefs were enough to sway the jury beyond a reasonable doubt but even more grotesque is how a clusterfuck of dumb, unverified assumptions led the profiler to his conclusions. He blames the detectives for not doing "Investigation 101", and says he would not have testified if only he had known the detectives were so negligent.
As much blame as the profiler deserves (he basically comes off as reliable as a psychic), seems like a large portion of blame should go to the district attorney, who presumably knew he was so short of evidence that he had to base his case on the profiler's testimony. Can't imagine what was going through the jury's heads; prosecutors often complain how modern juries demand the presence of DNA because of how TV dramas like CSI portray and hype DNA and other evidence as ubiquitous and unimpeachable, but this jury seems to have had the completely opposite mindset.
Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars
#4Profiling, like much of "criminal science" such as Arson Investigation is a large part unsubstantiated bullshit. It's amazing how poorly regulated all of it is and how many innocent people are in prison, or executed, because of it.
DNA testing too, complete nonsense
Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars
#5The big crime is how little epistemological support there is for some of the big forensic tools (fingerprints, DNA, bite marks, arson spread, etc), how little interest there is in researching these areas, and how trusted they are.
But I am curious: apart from TV shows, how important is this kind of evidence in most trials? Is it actually uncommon?
Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars
#6Profiling, like much of "criminal science" such as Arson Investigation is a large part unsubstantiated bullshit. It's amazing how poorly regulated all of it is and how many innocent people are in prison, or executed, because of it.
DNA testing too, complete nonsense
Can you elaborate? Do you mean the science of DNA testing as a whole is complete nonsense, or just DNA testing as it relates to criminal prosecution?
Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars
#7The big crime is how little epistemological support there is for some of the big forensic tools (fingerprints, DNA, bite marks, arson spread, etc), how little interest there is in researching these areas, and how trusted they are. But I am curious: apart from TV shows, how important is this kind of evidence in most trials? Is it actually uncommon?
From what I understand DNA has gotten pretty good when used responsibly, but the rest are no better than reading a chicken's entrails. Have I perhaps been misinformed about DNA?
Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars
#8Profiling, like much of "criminal science" such as Arson Investigation is a large part unsubstantiated bullshit. It's amazing how poorly regulated all of it is and how many innocent people are in prison, or executed, because of it.
Profiling is probably better-than-nothing as an investigative technique, that is, e.g., as a tool to choose where to focus resources to look for meaningful evidence. What it probably should not be mistaken for is a scientific source of evidence on its own.
Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars
#9The big crime is how little epistemological support there is for some of the big forensic tools (fingerprints, DNA, bite marks, arson spread, etc), how little interest there is in researching these areas, and how trusted they are. But I am curious: apart from TV shows, how important is this kind of evidence in most trials? Is it actually uncommon?
From what I understand DNA has gotten pretty good when used responsibly, but the rest are no better than reading a chicken's entrails. Have I perhaps been misinformed about DNA?
Is comparing fingerprints really "no better than reading a chicken's entrails?" I could understand things like trying to guess based on similarities with a partial print, but comparing two full prints seems like it would be pretty easy.
Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars
#10Might as well convict a person based on tea leaves....