no you feel that way bc you hold yourself in very high regard and are certain of your convictions. the fact that you feel that way is wat proves cc's point.

The old forum allowed the insertion polls mid-thread. I'd really like to put up this one:

'Do you think Johnnie Cochran really thought O.J. was innocent?'

[yes]
[lol]

Man I wish there was a 2p2 sweat thread for the OJ trial. That would've been epic.

Henry17 might not've survived it. Well, maybe w/ medical attention and a couple of drips.

I think that George Zimmerman thread may be a close second, perhaps even surpass OJ depending on what happens in the trial.

It's already bringing the lulz.

I posted some random comment about guns, someone responded "whenever you talk about guns I always picture you in a bunker with 4 foot walls" or something and I reply "My Office" and post this picture:


Few people bite, I troll a little, get caught leveling the thread we all move on.

350 posts later some poster comes in with an in depth analysis of that picture, where I got it from, how many other occurrences there are of that image on the Internet (56) and that the image on the monitor is "Yahoo Japan".

It was his first (and so far only) post in the Trayvon Martin thread.

AND THAT is why I that thread.

I would vote for yes because OJ would've told him that his son did it.

Ben Franklin knows.

?

Ah, I thought CC was providing me with a relevant possibly uplifting historic anecdote about my situation involving one of the founding fathers.

He was just engaging in dorm room douchery though.

you're the one that called yourself a whore though...

Always. You got kids though, and you have to take care of your kids. It's not like you did not put in some serious work and take serious risk to insure the safety of your community. Time to get paid put your kids in college and visit a nice looking island or two.

By that rationale, than lawyers are biting at the bit to represent defendants, it's their job ffs...so of course they wouldn't want people to work things out with a cop by themselves.

FWIW, I dont believe any of those statements are accurate

Doesnt matter if you know how to use the chewbacca defense.

Oh, well they are both accurate.

Here is some stuff for people who think prosecutors are always on the up and up.

zomg, so stunned!

Another article, same site.

Thanks Mike Davis.

Don't worry guys, talking to the cops is just fine. Their ultimate goal is always clean honest justice. They would never cut a corner or two to get a conviction. No way, no how.

Case Closed,

In your own words what do you think this establishes?

Cops and prosecutors make mistakes at best and at worst they will actively put their own careers above a pursuit of the truth. It is best to realize this and protect yourself accordingly.

Don't worry though. I don't think any of them were rich white guys. So you're probably still good following your path of casual ignorance.

No. This has zero to do with prosecutors and only involves police in so much as the crime lab is technically police but not the on the ground police that actually interact with suspects. If you took the time to actually read the reviews you'd know that what it establishes is that crime labs don't follow the strict documentation requirements and the second article establishes that reporters like to write sensational stories that are not supported by fact but which they know no most people will never check.

I didn't look at all the reviews but I picked a half dozen at random and of those not one found exculpatory evidence. What they all found was sub-par documentation. That isn't good but it is pretty much expected -- people who do the same thing over and over again will eventually stop doing stuff that isn't really necessary. For example, certain machines need calibration or negative tests before using them and a technician who has done these tests a few thousand times will just automatically do that without actually documenting that they did it in the notes. This types of **** is sloppy but it happens everywhere and it does not in anyway imply that innocent people are in jail because the notes were inadequate. Of most serious all the reviews I looked at five were problems with documentation and not findings The sixth was an issue that a more modern test was available that would have given more detailed results but an older test was used -- the older technology still led to a match.

You joke but this is actually the most important aspect of what that review established. Forensics have become so important that it is pretty much impossible to convict someone of a serious crime without them. The official protocols that have to be followed vs what is actually necessary to get accurate results leads to pretty much every single investigation falling short. If someone has enough money to go after the forensics they will always being able to bring them into question. This is a major problem but it involves guilty people getting away with it because they have money not innocent people going to jail.

From the article:

NO CONNECTION HERE! IT'S A LOCAL PROBLEM TO THE TECH LABS...except when they tell the prosecutors office about these problems and then they keep it secret even though it could call into question some of their convictions.

You did not read these articles. It's okay to admit that henry.

That matters? Again, it's not just about going to jail. Being investigated and going to trial and winning can be an extremely rough process that can mess up the lives of normal people. Making a stupid statement can get you in a lot of trouble and you can never be 100% sure that exculpatory evidence will make its way to your lawyer.

Why would you say this? When was the last time you watched a real trial? When was the last time you talked to someone in the criminal legal system who was not a random second year intern? This a false assertion. Completely false.

wait what? i though csi was a documentary

They tell the prosecutors about these problems because it will prepare them for the eventual sandbagging they will get when someone with a competent defence lawyer goes after the forensics. Further, it allows the prosecutor to decide if any case needs to be re-examined-- none in my sampling did and I highly doubt any do-- without causing a massive appeal process which would bring the court system to a halt and result in a bunch of guilty people getting out because of technicalities.

Yes and as is often the case articles are not actually reflective of reality. The real story is boring so reporters either because they want a more sensational story or because they simply don't understand what they have write articles that are wrong. Did you read the actual reviews? They are provided with the first article. None of them have anything that even remotely suggests an innocent person is in jail.

This review had nothing to do with exculpatory evidence -- it had to do with sloppy paper work. If your position is that we are not allowing enough guilty people out because of administrative errors I'm not really sympathetic to that.

Because it is true. That you would even question the importance of forensics in modern criminal trials is troubling.

Watched as in actually attended the court room a very long time but I have followed many criminal cases either because they involved interesting fact situations or because I knew the accused. Knowing lawyers and criminals puts you in a position of always being up on criminal law.

Further, it doesn't actually require that I have any contact with criminal law to make that statement. The importance of forensics in criminal trials has been a dominant topic in the academic literature for some time. It is such a big issue that it has even started to bubble over from academic journals into popular magazines. I find it odd that you would need me to tell you this.

Fairly recently, just because I don't actually work does not mean I haven't maintained my law school contacts. Criminal law is not at all popular but since I took a lot of it know the few people who were going that route quite well. The thing about going to law school is that even if you don't work as a lawyer-- probably more so since people assume you have all this free time-- is that you get bombarded with legal questions from everyone you meet. I don't think I have gone two months without having to answer / research something law related.

henry, you know that forensic science is basically a huge joke right

Henry, pretty meh reply. You've missed the point of everything I said. The articles are much more reflective of reality than what you had in your brain prior to reading them. Look at them plus the other ones I posted. Synthesize the data and try and figure it all out. Hell, maybe even you could do some google work yourself. It's all out there for you.

I never questioned the importance of forensics. Implying that there needs to be forensic evidence to get a conviction is wrong. I wish you were right, but that is just not the real world. Saying stupid stuff to the cops during an investigation will get you in trouble. It is always best to not say anything. Always always always always.

And again, it's it not about the conviction. If you talk to the cops it is going to be pretty likely that you will say something sutpid. I mean come on Henry, look at your posts. It is pretty obvious you'd implicate yourself in something. They'd lead you right there and you'd implicate yourself in ten minutes. You're kind of a mark. Sorry bro. You need the help of someone who does not have their own head up their ass to walk them through the process.

Also, lol at you doing research for people. Your friends must be really desperate.

I don't agree but regardless of your position on the merits of the science that has no relevance to my point -- all that matters is what juries think and juries rely heavily on forensics.