Kevin wrote: > > > > >Obviously we should operate using "the end does not justify the means" and > >they are just showing that all hard evidence that may have been found from > >an illegal source should be thrown out. It's good actually that judges are > >setting clear rules, it forces the police to do the exactly right things to > >make sure a person is convicted. But it's bad when a conviction is thrown > >out because some lab worker ten years ago wasn't following the rules set in > >place this year. > > > But I don't get why that discounts other REAL incontrovertible evidence. > OK, if a lab tech can't prove chain of custody or whatever, then the lab > results shouldn't be relied on, but if the investigators, in following > that up uncover hard evidence, how can that be ignored? That doesn't > make any sense, or help anyone. The authorities doing the follow-up work > haven't failed their evidentiary requirements (just like in the West > Wing example, the US hadn't done anything wrong in all their > investigations). What if it is shown that there is a reasonable > expectation that the hard evidence would have been found anyway, but the > tainted evidence made it discovered sooner? Is the incontrovertible > evidence still dismissed? > > Cheers > Russell C.
Only 8 days late (I just saw this reply). Not saying you read something into my post: I wasn't trying to equate a lab's results being thrown out ten years after the fact, just that some cases have been thrown out by applying rules today to rules not in place then. I think it's quite clear. ANY data that comes from a bad source is tainted. When the cops know that those are the rules, they can work to make sure everything they get is pristine. It sucks, police are obviously hamstrung in ways that criminals are not. It makes it more amazing that anyone is convicted of a crime. I'm glad for it, I don't want the police to have carte blanche on how they get their info. Should one criminal be able to get a reduced sentance by ratting out another? No, I don't think so, but it's being done and the rules are strict. It just makes it very tough for police in this country to work with info from other countries. I heard on the news yesterday....(does this sound familiar?) a web hosting company in NJ was shutting down a message board because of things written about an aussie company? Losing focus here. Good tips have to come from clean source. It makes everything so simple. I don't care if we learn who shot Kennedy, it has to be a clean source. If the data 'would have been found anyway' then why didn't they find it, anyway? Kevin T. Prof. Plum on the grassy knoll with a candlestick
