Evidence. Believe It Or Don't.

[Andrew D]

Misconduct abounds. Prosecutors who bully, lie and misuse or hide evidence are as common as baseball players who chew gum. In all the most active capital-punishment states, prosecutors often build their cases by hiding evidence and using jailhouse snitches eager to lie in return for lower sentences for themselves.

(Robert Sherrill, "Death Trip: The American Way of Execution," The Nation (21 December 2000).)

There you are.

An article by an investigative journalist published in a reputable magazine that has been engaged in responsible journalism for well over a century.

Do you want to believe it? That's up to you.

But does it blow apart the claim that I cannot produce evidence to support my contention about prosecutors? Manifestly so.

And it does not stand alone. You might also consider this:

... prosecutorial misconduct in capital cases ... is widespread, is not confined to a single region of the country, and often leads to wrongful convictions and even to the execution of the innocent.

(Michael A. Kroll, "Killing Justice: Government Misconduct and the Death Penalty" (Death Penalty Information Center, March 1992.)

In looking at cases in which people were proved to have been wrongfully convicted -- God only knows how many other people have been wrongfully convicted -- Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld, and Jim Dwyer found that prosecutorial misconduct was a factor in 42% of them. Of those cases, 22% involved the knowing use of false testimony. 13% involved coerced witnesses. 8% involved false statements to the jury. And the big winner, 43% involved suppression of exculpatory evidence.

(See Actual Innocence (Doubleday, 2000).)

And remember, all of those cases were prosecutorial-misconduct cases. They weren't cases in which, for example, exculpatory evidence was suppressed because the prosecutor honestly believed that it was inadmissible for one reason or another. They were cases in which the exculpatory evidence was suppressed (etc.) because of prosecutorial misconduct -- cases in which prosecutors deliberately suppressed exculpatory evidence which they knew should have been admitted.

And there is more. A lot more. Tons more.

Does any of it use the exact words that I used? Not that I've seen.

But is anyone seriously going to contend that my use of the word "most" is an unreasonable construction of the phrase "as common as baseball players who chew gum"? Is anyone seriously going to contend that "as common as baseball players who chew gum" means "only a few bad apples here and there"?

How about "widespread"? Does it literally mean "most"? Of course not. But is "most" a reasonable inference that one can draw from "widespread"? I think so.

And how about prosecutorial misconduct in 42% of cases where convictions have been proved to have been wrongfully obtained? Is anyone seriously going to contend that those cases represent more than a small fraction of the total number of cases in which convictions have been wrongfully obtained?

Lord Jim claims to have Googled "prosecutorial misconduct" and not found anything that supports my contention. But it took me less time to find what I have just quoted -- and a great deal more -- than it took to copy and paste those quotations into this posting.

I have spent more time typing this -- and I am a good typist; 38 years of pianism has side benefits -- then it took me to find what I have just presented. And a great deal more.

A great deal more that is readily available to anyone who bothers to invest even a modicum of effort into looking for it.

So how much looking did Lord Jim really do? Only he knows for sure.

But one thing I know for sure is that put most charitably, he must have done something terribly wrong. Because Googling a simple query such as "prosecutorial misconduct" and not finding the same things that I found is essentially impossible.

Again, whether you want to believe this evidence is not for me to say. But the claim that it is not out there is pure horseshit.

Reams and reams -- or however one measures bandwidth -- of pure Lord Jim horseshit.

I'll be waiting for his apology. Well, no, I actually won't. I'll be waiting for his evasions and tangents and all the other things that he has been accusing me of -- accusations which understands very well how to phrase; it requires nothing more than describing his own tactics.

[Lord Jim]

Geezus, a POV anecdote ridden article in The Nation is the best you can do?

Pathetic.

And besides, even that doesn't back up this statement you made that you keep running from:

It is still true that in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it.

[Lord Jim]

BTW, just out of curiosity, have you decided just how many more threads you plan to start in order to further prove that you have absolutely nothing to back up this statement?

It is still true that in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it.

And absolutely nothing to back up your claims about the overwhelming majority of police being dishonest?

If you don't have an exact number could you give us a ballpark estimate? Ten more threads? Twenty?

Maybe Daisy can set up a new room: "Andrews Threads That Prove He Doesn't Have Any Proof"...

[Andrew D]

Ah. I get it.

Now the claim is not that I cannot produce evidence to support my contention, even though that has been the claim all along. Now the claim is that the evidence which I have produced is not to Lord Jim's liking.

That is not what he has been saying all along. All along, he has been complaining that I have not produced "any evidence". "Any evidence whatsoever." "In any way shape or form provides evidence." Etc.

Those are his words. That is what he has been saying the whole time is what has got him so lathered up about the whole thing. "Any evidence whatsoever."

So now I produce some evidence -- evidence which he could easily have found if he had bothered to look for it -- and the whole game changes. Now, for some unexplained reason, "any evidence whatsoever" is not what he is bitching about.

Now, and I think that we can all grasp why, the problem is not the supposed lack of "any evidence whatsoever". The problem now is that he does not believe the evidence. And he wants us to believe that he has not moved the goalposts.

But he has. And everyone who is still following this -- if there is anyone who is still following this -- knows it. And no one knows it better than he does.

[Andrew D]

BTW, just out of curiosity, have you decided just how many more threads you plan to start in order to further prove that you have absolutely nothing to back up [your] statement?

I will not be starting any such threads. I have not started any such threads.

I do not have "absolutely nothing". Everyone here can see that there is something.

Is it enough for you? Evidently not.

Would anything be enough for you? Manifestly not.

But something, even something that you find utterly unconvincing, is still not nothing.

And everyone here knows that. Especially you.

[Lord Jim]

Now the claim is not that I cannot produce evidence to support my contention, even though that has been the claim all along. Now the claim is that the evidence which I have produced is not to Lord Jim's liking.

Team Troll Playbook Tactic # 23: "If changing the subject doesn't work when your butt's been nailed, try confusing the issue and personalizing it"

No, the claim remains what it has been all along; that you have produced nothing whatsoever to back up the accusation you made about prosecutors, or the accusation you made about cops.

Those claims remain 100% valid.

[rubato]

Lj is merely try to 'count coup' against someone who has kicked his ass for years.

Pussy

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

Do you have any grasp of what evidence is?

Witness A testifies X. Witness B testifies not-X. The testimony of at least one of them is false (not necessarily deliberately false). Nonetheless, the testimony of each of them is evidence.

That is why we have the time-honored phrase "conflicting evidence".

Do you understand this?

Yes, of course you do.

[Sean]

There's also hearsay, conjecture and anecdotal evidence.

You may have heard of them too...

[Andrew D]

Yes, there is hearsay. Hearsay is admitted into evidence in courts in every part of the world where the legal system is descended from the common law. (And from what I have seen, it is also commonly admitted into evidence in civil-law jurisdictions, but I lack the expertise to say for sure.) It is admitted into evidence routinely. Not a day goes by -- unless all the courts happen to be closed at the same time -- when hearsay is not admitted into evidence.

Yes, there is anecdotal evidence. It is admitted into evidence routinely. Not a day ....

Yes, there is conjecture. But the conclusions of people who have actually investigated a question are not conjecture.

Was there something that you actually wanted to contribute?

[Lord Jim]

I will not be starting any such threads. I have not started any such threads.

You need to go back and count again; including this one, you've started two just today....

[Andrew D]

Blah, blah, blah.

How many "free cash machines" have you sold to the gullible today?

[Lord Jim]

Blah, blah, blah.

Pretty well sums up everything you've offered to back up the claims you made about the prosecutors and cops.

You should stick to that; it'll save you a lot of key strokes. The next time you feel compelled to employ the dishonest weasel tactics of Team Troll, (subject shifts, ad hominem attacks, mischaracterizing what's been said, playing the victim, word games, etc., etc.,) which is all you've done in this discussion, just post "blah blah blah"...

[Guinevere]

. . . you have produced nothing whatsoever to back up the accusation you made about prosecutors, or the accusation you made about cops.

A far more accurate and fair reading of what Andrew has set out if that he has indeed produced evidence supporting his statements about prosecutors, and both he and I produced evidence supporting the statements he made regarding "testilying." The fact that you don't like that evidence, doesn't make it any less what it is: evidence. I also note that you have not produced anything in the realm of evidence which is contrary to Andrew's evidence. Other than your opinion of course, but you aren't being called as an expert witness in this matter. You've also tried to show that Andrew is biased regarding prosecutors, and perhaps he is. But again, that doesn't mean his evidence stops being evidence. If you have evidence to counter his assertions -- evidence which is something more than your own biased opinion -- please produce it.

[Joe Guy]

You want evidence that most cops don't lie??

Here's your evidence.....

DAs teach NYPD cops not to fib at trial
YOU (DON'T) LIE!
BY ALISON GENDAR
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Friday, January 14, 2011

The NYPD is trying to teach cops to tell the truth - and nothing but the truth - when they're in court.

After a spate of cases in which cops were prosecuted for lying, the Police Department has created a handbook with tips for testifying.

At least one of them seems elementary: "Do not concoct answers or explanations - just state that you do not know."

The tips are part of a mock trial workshop designed to teach cops how to succeed on the stand without distorting the truth.

"The message is that the job doesn't stop at arrest," said Timothy Koller, executive assistant district attorney for Staten Island DA Daniel Donovan.

source

[Andrew D]

Blah, blah, blah.

Pretty well sums up everything you've offered to back up the claims you made about the prosecutors and cops.

You should stick to that; it'll save you a lot of key strokes. The next time you feel compelled to employ the dishonest weasel tactics of Team Troll, (subject shifts, ad hominem attacks, mischaracterizing what's been said, playing the victim, word games, etc., etc.,) which is all you've done in this discussion, just post "blah blah blah"...

Translation: "Damn that Andrew; he's crushed me again."

[Crackpot]

Actually Guin Andrew presented evidence that it has happened (something no one is denying) What is in dispute is the claim that it is what happens most of the time.

[Lord Jim]

Actually Guin Andrew presented evidence that it has happened (something no one is denying) What is in dispute is the claim that it is what happens most of the time.

We have a bingo!

He "proves" something no one disputed and fails to (epically, totally and utterly) to prove what he claimed.

Translation: "Damn that Andrew; he's crushed me again."

Crushed. No....

Sickened and disgusted would be accurate....

Sickened and disgusted by the the unethical and dishonest antics you have been willing to shamelessly engage in in order to avoid doing the honorable thing and admit that you can't back up your bull shit claims.

A truly disgraceful and embarrassing performance ...in so many ways....

I will prefer to think that it was been brought on by some current mental problem than by your having embraced complete ethical amorality.

[Sue U]

Actually Guin Andrew presented evidence that it has happened (something no one is denying) What is in dispute is the claim that it is what happens most of the time.

Not that it "happens most of the time," but that most prosecutors would do it if required to get the conviction. The evidence Andrew presented indicates that in 42% of proven wrongful convictions, prosecutorial misconduct was involved. That is a remarkably high number, and indicates a rampant problem.

ETA:

I don't know how large or representative the sample is, but consider that this statistic represents 42% of the individual prosecutions -- not prosecutors -- leading to wrongful conviction. If each of the prosecutors responsible for misconduct tried more than one case in the sample, it proportionately multiples the percentage of proseuctors demonstrated to have engaged in misconduct.

[Crackpot]

Yet still not most even in the cases where a wrongful conviction was proven let alone in the set of all cases.

One can argue for a rampant problem without tarring the majority with that brush. IMNSHO the rampant use of hyperbole to smear the opposition is one of the major roadblocks to meaningful discourse in this society. Regardless if one uses the favorite racist caveat "But, you're one of the good ones" or not.