View Single Post
  #114  
Old 11-16-2014, 12:40 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
I think you are overstating their motivations a bit, and understanding the reality of the situation. Yes, there is something a bot unseemly about the concept of "bad evidence", but it is largely a reflection of how hard it is to piece together past events or crimes involving uncooperative people absent really compelling direct evidence.

When you are dealing with circumstantial evidence, the weight of the evidence is primarily based on the narrative you can uncover or entirely create to explain it's relevance. Not testing or not probing too deeply into things that don't fit a reasonable narrative is less likely to impede justice in the long run if your narrative is sound.

Similarly, witness testimony is also problematic because memory is malleable. Yes, they could have pressed Jay and others on their inconsistencies, but if even honest people tell conflicting stories. The heart of the matter is presenting a cogent and cohesive story to a jury that implicates the guilty party. That more than anything is what ensures justice.
But this is exactly why the Baltimore police are no longer allowed to keep the recording turned off until the interviewee "gets his story straight." Human memories are very malleable, and it is routine for authorities in these situations to intentionally or not start suggesting memories to witnesses.

One of the most prominent examples is from the McMartin preschool "satanic ritual abuse" case from the 1980s. It is believed that the testimony from the preschool children was entirely constructed through non-recorded interviews.