How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars • Hacker News Board

Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars

#61

Post by Vendan » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 1:42 AM UTC

j9461701 wrote: post #46

danso wrote: post #3

Worth 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…

It seems the jury was basing their faith in the profiler on another famous crime drama, namely Sherlock Holmes. >The driver’s-side window of the victim’s car had been lowered several inches, suggesting to the profiler that the teen had rolled it down when someone who looked trustworthy approached. And her tube top was askew — a sign, the profiler said, of a botched sexual assault. In Sherlock Holmes stories, that is…

Samuel Vimes dreamed about Clues. He had a jaundiced view of Clues. He instinctively distrusted them. They got in the way. And he distrusted the kind of person who’d take one look at another man and say in a lordly voice to his companion, “Ah, my dear sir, I can tell you nothing except that he is a left-handed stonemason who has spent some years in the merchant navy and has recently fallen on hard times,” and then unroll a lot of supercilious commentary about calluses and stance and the state of a man’s boots, when exactly the same comments could apply to a man who was wearing his old clothes because he’d been doing a spot of home bricklaying for a new barbecue pit, and had been tattooed once when he was drunk and seventeen* and in fact got seasick on a wet pavement. What arrogance! What an insult to the rich and chaotic variety of the human experience!

-- Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay

Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars

#62

Post by zaroth » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 1:45 AM UTC

warent wrote: post #51

oh_sigh wrote: post #38

This Safarik guy sounds like a real piece of shit. Absolutely zero remorse for telling a tall tale in front of a judge and jury which led to a man spending 11 years in prison for something he didn't do. > “Like other killers I’ve known, he’s also arrogant and narcissistic — fatal traits that led to his demise,” Safarik says. “This was all his doing…. Ultimately, he was responsible for it.” I only see arrogance and na…

His ego does seem completely out of control. Safarik seems to take himself way too seriously while simultaneously treating other people with little regard

Well, after all, he worked for the FBI.

Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars

#63

Post by kinkrtyavimoodh » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 1:48 AM UTC

j9461701 wrote: post #46

danso wrote: post #3

Worth 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…

It seems the jury was basing their faith in the profiler on another famous crime drama, namely Sherlock Holmes. >The driver’s-side window of the victim’s car had been lowered several inches, suggesting to the profiler that the teen had rolled it down when someone who looked trustworthy approached. And her tube top was askew — a sign, the profiler said, of a botched sexual assault. In Sherlock Holmes stories, that is…

Well said! I grew up reading Sherlock Holmes, and enjoyed it, but I recently revisited some stories and was enraged by how much general BS there as in all the inferences. Just a bunch of ridiculous (often not even true) stereotypes slapped together and an infallible hero spouting them.

The books would have caused a thousands kinds of outrage had they been written today.

Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars

#64

Post by mncharity » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 1:59 AM UTC

NumberSix wrote: post #14

pyre wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Regarding fingerprints, in the wake of the Brandon Mayfield case which raised serious questions about the accuracy of fingerprint identification by the FBI, the National Academy of Sciences was asked to perform a scientific assessment. Initial results were published in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) Bradford T. Ulery, 7733–7738, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1018707108 Accuracy and reliability of forensi…

Fingerprint identification: advances since the 2009 National Research Council report https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4581003/ has a recent summary.

Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars

#65

Post by ch4s3 » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 2:08 AM UTC

wyldfire wrote: post #33

ch4s3 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would think, but even "experts" on fingerprinting call it at best an art. It can be affected by bias[1], and there's no standard for declaring a match[2](same case as [1]). > I could understand things like trying to guess based on similarities with a partial print That's really the rub, pun intended I guess, there are no clean neatly pressed fingerprints left on object collected by police, generally speaking. [1]…

The stuff in this thread about fingerprints matching algorithms and DNA lab errors -- does that mean we shouldn't even use it as exculpatory evidence?

The top comment under which my comment falls is about police use of forensic "science".

>The 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

#66

Post by ch4s3 » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 2:08 AM UTC

wyldfire wrote: post #33

ch4s3 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would think, but even "experts" on fingerprinting call it at best an art. It can be affected by bias[1], and there's no standard for declaring a match[2](same case as [1]). > I could understand things like trying to guess based on similarities with a partial print That's really the rub, pun intended I guess, there are no clean neatly pressed fingerprints left on object collected by police, generally speaking. [1]…

The stuff in this thread about fingerprints matching algorithms and DNA lab errors -- does that mean we shouldn't even use it as exculpatory evidence?

The top comment under which my comment falls is about police use of forensic "science".

>The 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

#67

Post by Retric » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 2:19 AM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #57

winter_blue wrote: post #37

Is there any possibility of this man Safarik being punished? Can Safarik be sued and held accountable for destroying eleven years of an innocent man's life? I feel like some sort punishment is due towards ruthless opportunistic people like these. (I would say the same about the people who pursued Swartz even after MIT & JSTOR dropped the case.)

> I feel like some sort punishment is due towards ruthless opportunistic people like these. (I would say the same about the people who pursued Swartz even after MIT & JSTOR dropped the case.) How could you possibly prosecute people for the Swartz case? They were simply seeking the punishment that the law specifies. If you don't like the law, then lobby to have it changed. If you want it to be less vigorously enforced…

There is following the law, and there is knowingly conviction of an innocent. This is the second one, and IMO there really should be penalties for this.

Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars

#68

Post by Retric » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 2:23 AM UTC

wyldfire wrote: post #33

ch4s3 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would think, but even "experts" on fingerprinting call it at best an art. It can be affected by bias[1], and there's no standard for declaring a match[2](same case as [1]). > I could understand things like trying to guess based on similarities with a partial print That's really the rub, pun intended I guess, there are no clean neatly pressed fingerprints left on object collected by police, generally speaking. [1]…

The stuff in this thread about fingerprints matching algorithms and DNA lab errors -- does that mean we shouldn't even use it as exculpatory evidence?

It's easier for evidence to say the person is innocent than guilty. Ex: a blurry video of a white guy. It's in no way enough to show which white person did it, but it is enough to show no black person did.

Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars

#69

Post by IIAOPSW » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 2:46 AM UTC

danso wrote: post #3

Worth 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…

You know the saying "if you like sausages never go to the sausage factory"? Well I've got some bad news for you about the justice system.

We like to think of courts and juries in the idealistic view given to us in school. Its just like "12 Angry Men". Everyone gets their fair shake in court. Even if 11 people want to convict and go home the 12th one will stand up right? After all, you're a reasonable person. You can't imagine just convicting a guy without a reasonable discussion. Surely enough of your fellow citizens are the same?

The truth is a shocking amount of people in society just have deference to authority figures. They'll trust whatever expert the prosecution produces. You would think that courts have standards for what counts as experts, but the truth is the standards are horribly lacking. Shows like CSI give the average citizen a cops and robbers view of reality. When is the last time an episode of CSI didn't end with the guy getting caught and convicted? Have they ever made a mistake in CSI? Made an ambiguous decision?

And why wouldn't the DA choose to prosecute as much as possible? You don't want to appear weak on crime. After all, you have an election to win if you want to keep your job.

Trial by jury is only as good as the society within which it exists.

Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars

#70

Post by mattnewton » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 3:14 AM UTC

ollieshmollie wrote: post #23

neaden wrote: post #2

Profiling, 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.

This is a great article about an arson investigation that turned out to be bogus, leading to someone's execution. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire

That was one of the most heart-wrenchingly awful stories I've read. And everyone who took part in the killing just walked away. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/05/11/jury-clears-th...