|
|
Post by albion on Sept 15, 2017 1:21:56 GMT
Has anyone been watching this on Netflix. I find it very eye opening. It confirms some of the beliefs I already had about the justice system, and raises some new questions for me. In one respect, I see how LE takes the circumstantial evidence, and their bias, and run with it to the detriment of the cases. So I can understand why some people in the earons case seem so willing to attribute the LE missteps to this, and yet the earons case still seems to be more than just dumb luck in terms of the framing of likely suspects.
I didnt realize how much LE can outright lie to the people being questioned. The first episode with the "Mr Big" scam done by the RCMP was incredible. Even if I dont necessarily believe the two suspects were guilty, it would seem to me that the were so many questionable tactics in their trial that they should be released.
One good moment so far, is when the then prosecutor said that he understands why people cant get their minds around why the woman was guilty. Which I seem to read, why cant people close their minds, disregard reasonable doubt, and just accept that she did it with out any proof. The show made a subtle reference to the fact that this case might have been what made his reputation and eventual advancement to the bench.
|
|
|
|
Post by almagata on Sept 15, 2017 5:34:49 GMT
No, but I will watch it. It sounds like a great series.
I've been watching the Manhunt:Unabomber which has been very interesting as well. If the portrayal is true, Ted got screwed by his attorneys and the courts big time.
Yeah, my sister works for a public defender's office in California. She said that if you ever get arrested, guilty or not, don't talk to the police without an attorney EVER. In many cases, the police need a confession or information from a suspect to make a case. Oh, and if you are not under arrest, leave.
|
|
|
|
Post by albion on Sept 16, 2017 6:36:05 GMT
I did a little research on one of the experts from the last episode. It seemed to me that this person broke the poi down during interrogation, which led to his "confession". what would be the correct use of the term "false positive" in this instance? The interrogator seemed like an egomaniac imh, unprofessional, opinion. Is it odd that the Gov allowed Tony Pellicano to use these same methods to ascertain guilt or innocence, and look where Pellicano is now. And Pellicano was once Army Signal Corp as well as on the Illinois Police Board. www.polygraphexperts.com/johnjpalmatier.htm1978 - 1988 Aeroscout Section Leader, Operations Officer, Executive Officer and Intelligence Officer - D Troop 1/238 Air Cavalry and 446th Attack Helicopter Battalions. 1977 - 1978 Communications Platoon Leader - F CO 425 Infantry (Ranger), Infantry Officer Basic and Airborne School, Ft. Benning, Georgia. 1976 - 1977 Weapons Platoon Leader - B CO 1/125 Infantry. 1968 - 1973 Active Duty Military - Electronics technician/ specialist, Military Police officer and Military Police Investigator - with Army Security Agency. Duty stations in Missouri, Massachusetts, Japan, Thailand, Texas and Okinawa. |
|
|
|
Post by almagata on Sept 16, 2017 13:08:32 GMT
I watched the two episodes on Atif Rafay & Sebastian Burns. I honestly can't say that I know they were innocent of the murders but I can say that the Mr. Big method is not ethical.
People like to believe that they would never become a victim of a confidence scheme, but that is exactly what the Mr. Big method is. It's very similar to the methods that the human traffickers use to hook young kids. They identify a need and then they fulfill that need using manipulation and theater.
Was Sebastian foolish to talk to anyone about the crimes, absolutely. He should have talked to an attorney immediately and that attorney should have advised him not to talk to anyone other than the attorney about the crimes. Sadly, if he and Atif are innocent, his naivete cost them their freedom.
|
|
|
|
Post by albion on Sept 16, 2017 20:15:54 GMT
I agree. I dont know if the boys were innocent or not. But they certainly didnt get a fair trial.
Aside from the two confessions in the Earons case. The Pancoast confession in the Vicki Morgan case is at the top of my mind. I think he would have to be included in the group as well. An investigation where LE lost or destroyed evidence which could exonerate him. Being interviewed just hours after a traumatic experience. He possibly might not have had the strongest personality. Reports that he was acting as if he was under the influence of drugs. If you apply the techniques shown in this DOC series, I think Pancoast should be at the top of the list. Except that Pancoast died in prison years ago.
In a few of these cases it was good for the GOV, big business, or local people if the person accused, and who gave a confession under the powerful duress the confessions show, if someone was convicted of the crime, or at least some crime. In a later episode, if LE would have spent more time with the physical evidence, it would have pointed the finger at a large car manufacturer. But they ignored that evidence completely. Could it have something to do with the case being tried in Detroit? Is that why they denied a change of venue?
I really liked this series. It never seemed to outright say there was a conspiracy in any of the cases. But it did show that there were benefits to some for the persons accused to be convicted.
|
|
