> Kevin wrote: > > >If the data 'would have been found anyway' then why > >didn't they find it, anyway? > > > I think most investigations follow leads in the order which promises the > best returns, and if they don't know it's tainted they are going to > follow a good lead (it doesn't have to be another country - it could be > the next county or the next precinct). If a less promising lead is later > followed up and found to produce the evidence, it's too late; under the > American system, the incontrovertible evidence has already been tainted > by the first lead which pointed in that direction. Who wins from that? > Certainly not the cop who diligently followed the lead in good faith, > certainly not the victim, nor the future victims of the criminal who is > set free despite there being no doubt that he committed the crime, and > not even the general public who rely on the cop to follow the rules of > evidence, because he had no way of knowing. Human nature says he is less > likely to follow the rules in future, because those rules set the > criminal free. > > I still say tainted evidence should be thrown out, but other evidence > stemming from it can't... Your authorities are trying to protect your > citizenry from the mafia, the triads, the terrorists, and the dealers - > none of them are going to follow the rules, but they sure as hell are > going to exploit the rules to make sure they can continue their killing > spree. It must be devastating for your DAs when their carefully built > case unravels... > > Cheers > Russell C.
You aren't understanding me, and the system. (Wait, I mean I am not communicating my ideas effectively.) Remember this started by talking about a TV show. (You should have seen the conclusion by now......?) The police aren't following tainted leads because they are doing everything up front to make sure they aren't tainted. Yes it makes good drama on TV, but cop A who has tainted evidence isn't going to tell cop B: "Umm, maybe you should be looking at this person, not that you heard that from me." (Do I believe that happens? YES! Everyday!) So NO investigation gets off the ground from tainted evidence. From the second a crime is reported the cops are trying to do everything they can possibly do to make sure that they follow all procedures. (When they aren't wailing on young blacks or breaking the legs of other criminals). Now this is real police we are talking about. That was my whole point when I was referring to Johnie Bin Walker. The FEDS were not following good police procedures so a lot of his information may be tainted. (And I'm talking about the interrogation(s) on American soil. Not that the CIA or FBI should feel free to use any means necessary just because they are abroad, but when you're in a tent and you're lucky to have enough light to write with let alone being able to tape a confession....) We are missing each others points. I understand your complaint "Good info should not be tossed if it was found on a GOOD FAITH tip, which turns out to be tainted." I'm trying to say that the TV != real life. 99.9% of the time the info is gotten from a good source. The bad sources are pruned immediately. As soon as you let one instance slip by saying "Well we would have found that info anyway." or "These investigators didn't know the source was bad" you can open the floodgates for abuse. I'm not a slippery slope person, but there are places where the slope should be an obvious 900 meter drop, this is legal, that is not. I think there was a case in Chicago...the police were listening/wiretapping an immigrant. I don't know what for. The immigrant had a teenage daughter and he killed her for being rebellious. The police had the whole thing on audio tape. (I don't know why they couldn't stop it, I'd like to say they weren't listening live, or they didn't think the father had killed his daughter). They couldn't use the tape against the father because that wasn't what the wiretap warrant was related to. Yes that's the stupidest thing we' ve ever heard. The wiretap was legal, the police were doing their jobs, following every procedure. But the motives do not matter, it was the outcome. Would this have been much worse if the father had gotten away with the murder, had gotten off on this technicality? Of course, but still it's better that the police have their rules, they follow them, and it usually turns out okay. (This may raise a ton of questions, like "well how DID they solve the crime without the defendant pointing back to the wiretap?" I don't know off hand, heck they may have come to a plea agreement before trial. This was easily 14 years ago. Kevin T. Sad day
