Forensics, Fraud and Fairness

My Recent Posts

Jennifer Mnookin, Dean of UCLA’s School of Law recently released a research paper on “The Uncertain Future of Forensic Science.” To begin with, the “science” of forensics always had a goal, and that was to “scientifically” prove that discovered evidence supported the conclusion that a person was guilty of a crime. The intention was to convict citizens who had committed crimes, an altogether honorable mission.

 

Iniquitous Experts

As Dean Mnookin describes early forensics: “It’s not that anybody was trying to commit fraud or do something wrong, but these techniques did develop in ways that didn’t lead to them being tested carefully because the judges in these early cases didn’t require it. They just say, ‘you claim to be an expert? Sure.’” In the beginning, and even today, “experts” are trained by the agencies they will serve; that’s somewhat like saying “hello this is Jason, my finance director. I taught him everything he needs to know about finance.” I would want the person collecting evidence to be objective, because lack of objectivity, as we will see, creates problems in justice.

 

Dean Mnookin: “On the forensic science side, many don’t have any science background. They come to law enforcement and don’t necessarily have a college degree, either. Now many forensic departments do require an undergrad science degree, but it’s very rare to have PhD-level science training, and many forensic scientists are not themselves scientific researchers, so they’re not well-positioned to research their own discipline or think about it from a research perspective. That doesn’t mean they’re not professionals trying to do a good job, but they’re not well-situated to be engaged in the exercise of establishing validity or to deeply understand what that requires.”

 

An agency which shall remain nameless, in a case that barely resonated beyond the county where the trial was held, used a “hypnotist” in order to obtain information. The hypnotist was “certified,” whatever that means. Look on the internet and you can become a certified hypnotist quite easily. I would have loved to have cross-examined the hypnotist, who (and I cannot confirm this) had better have known quite a few things about memory and hypnotism, as well as understanding hypnotic age regression. Perhaps this person did know a lot about human memory, or, perhaps a certified hypnotist does understand the psychology of hypnotism. My point is that resorting to hypnosis for testimony is fraught with holes any competent lawyer (with an understanding of psychology or employing the skills of a psychologist) could drive a truck through.

 

In 1978, Ted Bundy was convicted (in part) by the testimony of one Dr. Souviron (a dentist) and forensic dentistry consultant Dr. Lowell Levine, who testified that the bite mark on Lisa Levy perfectly matched Ted Bundy’s teeth. The year 1978 was the first time in Florida’s legal history that a conviction was supported by bite mark testimony. The bite mark was the centerpiece of the Bundy trial.  Please understand that I do not for one second believe that Ted Bundy was innocent. Those that testified at the Bundy trial went to great lengths to prove their point. Two issues: One, teeth are not like fingerprints, and two, it is common knowledge that teeth, unlike fingerprints, can certainly be altered.

 

So Much for Objectivity or Justice

 

One of the top FBI forensic scientists, Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, a Ph.D, an official whose testimony would have been critical in many cases, was found to be rather biased by an investigation by the Inspector General’s office. To quote information from the book “Tainted Evidence” by John F. Kelly and Phillip K. Wearne: “For nearly ten years, until he was suspended and put on ‘administrative leave’ just weeks before the IG's report was published in April 1997, Whitehurst had reported his own observations and what others had told him. Underpinning his complaints and their persistence were three things: the unscientific nature of so much of what was being passed off as science in the FBI lab; the culture of pro-prosecution bias rather than scientific truth that pervaded the lab, including the possibly illegal withholding of exculpatory information; and the complete inability of the FBI lab or its management to investigate itself and correct these problems.”

 

The FBI is the top law enforcement agency in the U.S. I can’t say that with a straight face anymore. The corruption, i.e., political influence tainting its operations, and general mismanagement have eroded the credibility of the FBI. While I am reading about the problems and mismanagement of our top law-enforcement agency, what I have not read or found is any documentation on how they have addressed those issues, or what measures they have taken to exonerate those convicted on false evidence or testimony. The lack of transparency should be truly frightening. That’s the great thing (if you’re a government official) about imprisoning people unfairly; the incarcerated  have a miniscule ability to fight back, and I find the punishment for those who violate the rights of the unfairly incarcerated innocent citizens to be far, far too lax.

 

Let’s face it, their self-righteousness and egotism is a reflection of the Deep State’s interest in the U.S. citizenry, that is to say, it is their privilege to walk all over citizens without any significant consequences. Ask Martha Stewart, and she will tell you never talk to the FBI without your attorney sitting right beside you. The threats to “amp up” if you bring in your lawyer are only a ruse to turn an interview into a case of lying to them, and then, you’re on the hook. As in all cases, never talk to a law enforcement official without your legal representation hearing and framing every word.

 

Spurning a Shakeup

 

Dean Mnookin: “At the same time, a lot of the changes seem pretty modest and there’s ways in which many judges are still exhibiting somewhat ostrich-like behaviors about forensic science and don’t seem interested in or willing to confront the hard questions that insufficiently validated forms of evidence raise.” To conclude, to quote Blackstone: “For the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.” My position is justice should be fair. It turns out forensics are fraught with fraud, claiming science when, in fact, scientific principles are disregarded in the interest of wining at all costs. We complain that our correctional institutions are packed to the walls, while more and more convicts are being exonerated by DNA. Does anyone see a problem with any of this? I’m quite happy a respected member of the legal community is finally recognizing a severe, if not critical problem with our justice system. Perhaps forensics should be the first measure of reform of our justice system. The second would be to see that those who put their personal goals and agendas before justice be removed and ideally, incarcerated for an extended period of time. And, of course, while they are incarcerated, make sure their fellow inmates know their previous occupations before they were incarcerated.

 

 

For those who wish to challenge facts, the sources:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/20/18149946/jennifer-mnookin-forensic-science-crime-law-politics-ucla-dean

http://movies2.nytimes.com/books/first/k/kelly-evidence.html

Comments

Leroy Added Dec 23, 2018 - 7:49pm
Another excellent article.
 
Our legal system is fraught with fraud.  I have little respect for it.  If justice happens, it is a secondary consequence.  An expert witness is not a neutral party.  You pay for an opinion.
 
Unfortunately, I have some experience with experts but not with forensics.  I was accused of selling real estate below its value.  Before I contracted to sell the property, I did my due diligence.  I had it appraised.  To avoid bias, I chose an appraiser from a phone book of another county.  I did not know him.  He did not know me.  I never met him.  He gave me a fair appraisal.  The other side, trying to prevent the sale at any cost and make me look incompetent, hired another appraiser to give them the answer they wanted.  He did his "like kind" appraisal, which was remarkably close to my appraiser.  Then, this expert added in the value of the timber.  Beyond any doubt, this expert was unethical.  The effect is the double counting of the timber.  He was paid to give the answer they wanted.  There was a huge difference.  They suggested that we compromise in the middle, to which I refused.  Expert witnesses are no more than hired guns.
 
I have known an expert witness.  He did it as a second job until he was fired, then he did it full time.  He was an engineering manager (with no reports) with a professional engineer certification.  He knew less about engineering that any engineer I have ever encountered.  He was a good BSer, which is one of the qualifiers.  He also used to stamp engineering documents for a fee for companies too small to have their own engineer.  His wife went to federal prison for a pyramid scheme.  Rumor has it that the FBI let him off the hook so there would be a parent to raise their daughter.  In short, he was a crook...and an expert witness.
Jeff Jackson Added Dec 23, 2018 - 8:10pm
Wow, Leroy, I'm glad you made it through all of that, hopefully unharmed. The "forensics" are not scientific, as the mounting evidence is showing, and yes, "experts" are nothing less than mercenaries. I think the solution is that, as suggested, the consequences of lying (versus an opinion) should be severe. I simply see no other solution than to make false or even biased statements, exclusion of exculpatory evidence, and misconduct of officials all be severely punished. They seem to see themselves as invulnerable, and the only way to remedy the situation, as I see it, is stripping away their rights, like voting and others, and long incarceration. Thanks Leroy, great comments with a great story.
Ward Tipton Added Dec 23, 2018 - 11:42pm
Interesting points to ponder ... yet these are the "experts" that the Statists would have lording over us by force. Frightening seems too mild a term. 
 
That is not say that there are not scientific aspects of the Forensics which should be discounted, but like psychology, so much of it is little more than subjective opinion ... and yet enforced under the full force of the law. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Dec 23, 2018 - 11:46pm
The last thing a courtroom is about is justice.
 
Its about winning and conviction rates enhancing the advancement/electability of the prosecutors.
 
 
Ward Tipton Added Dec 23, 2018 - 11:58pm
Yup. What Jeffry said. 
Neil Lock Added Dec 24, 2018 - 4:57am
Once again, I find myself saying: excellent article, Jeff.
 
And yet, even in this very forum there are those that try to tell us that, in contentious matters, we should "always trust the experts."
Jeff Jackson Added Dec 24, 2018 - 6:52am
Ward, you're right, and the "opinion" of guilt pretty much seals the deal. Thanks for your comments Ward.
Jeff Jackson Added Dec 24, 2018 - 6:56am
Thanks Jeffry. It's even worse if you represent yourself, which is like you having a squirt gun and they have a howitzer. It's their game, and just because you watched a few episodes of "Law and Order" you might think you know a thing or two, but you don't. Even fresh from law school lawyers get squashed. It's their game, and they play to win every time, Thanks Jeffry.
Jeff Jackson Added Dec 24, 2018 - 7:06am
Thanks Neil. Among the "experts" are the Deep State folks who tell us what to do, what to eat, and how to live. It seems as if the experts and their supporters have decided that we citizens don't know how to live and so they'll just have to tell us, and if we don't comply, they'll apply force. This country has a great number of people (experts) who make decisions about our lives and have little accountability, and as the article points out, not much training that would enable them to be objective. Thanks for your comments Neil, always appreciated.
Leroy Added Dec 24, 2018 - 7:06am
"Its about winning and conviction rates enhancing the advancement/electability of the prosecutors."
 
For criminal cases, I would say that is true. 
 
For civil cases, as well as criminal, it's about making money.  Don't ever make the mistake of thinking a lawyer is on your side.  He is no more than a hired gun to represent you.  There is a good chance that he is social friends with the opposing side, may even best friends.  His first priority is to make money for himself and his firm.  His second priority is to help the opposing lawyers make money. 
 
A lawyer can pretty much say anything about the opposing side, even if he knows it is a lie.  He is an officer of the court and is, therefore, not liable. 
 
My lawyer screwed up and didn't give me an order, which left me in default.  It left him open to a lawsuit.  He lied to the judge and said he never received the order.  I know that he lied because he inadvertently sent me an email which further down the chain was a conversation with the other lawyer calling BS.  He had proof that he received it. He admitted that he received it but didn't read it. Nevertheless, the opposing lawyer had to accept the lie.
 
The US court system is first and foremost a means to provide income to lawyers.
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 24, 2018 - 7:50am
another excellent article ( did someone say that already? )
 
Lack of objectivity, hubris/arrogance and greed in one form or another infects not only "justice", but every other mechanism of the state.
 
Here is a good example on a small scale. The dolts that populate the whole motor vehicle regime, from the license bureau to the black shirts who "police" our roads, have somehow figured out how they are able to transmit information about you the owner and assumed driver of said vehicle to every other state's system through the wonder of digital technology. That is when it comes to "offenses" and the collection of fines for same. Yet somehow when it comes to switching titles between states for the customer's convenience they haven't quite mastered that. In that instance it has to be done with the actual physical title by mail. That way each state can collect a fee.
Jeff Jackson Added Dec 24, 2018 - 8:07am
Thanks Leroy. No doubt they all belong to the same country club. We have tons of lawyers, and I have met two that were changing professions. From your example, they have no shame. I think that's actually in the law school curriculum.
The old saying goes "how can you tell if a lawyer is lying? His/her lips are moving." I sincerely would like to see all occupations get together and protect each other, as do lawyers and other professionals whose main purpose is to screw us. 
Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part II "We'll kill all the lawyers" and that was the 16th century. Or as JJ says: "Those who say money is a poor motivator understand neither money nor motivation." Thanks Leroy, sorry you had to go through all of that, but thanks for sharing. Trust by verify, as Ronaldus Magnus used to say.
Ward Tipton Added Dec 24, 2018 - 8:19am
"His first priority is to make money for himself and his firm.  His second priority is to help the opposing lawyers make money. "
 
The first commitment is to the BAR, a voluntary association. (Means a lot more than that in legal terms) Their second duty is to the court. The term Attorney comes from Attorn ... to turn over. When you hire an attorney, you declare yourself to be incompetent to make your own case in legal matters. You declare yourself incompetent and make yourself a Ward of the State. Jurisdiction? Constitution? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 24, 2018 - 9:37am
I have two attorneys: Smith and Wesson
Ward Tipton Added Dec 24, 2018 - 9:39am
God created all men. Dan Wesson made them equal. 
Ward Tipton Added Dec 24, 2018 - 9:40am
Most people only get Foo, King Wankers and Koontz for attorneys.
TexasLynn Added Dec 24, 2018 - 10:03am
Late to the thread, but I concur that it was a well thought out and presented piece.  I once again learn that things are even worse than I think they are.
 
I remember years ago (when there were just three or four TV channels) my dad telling me.  "We watch the news and experts and we take what they say as truth on all these subjects we know nothing about... then they do a news piece on something we DO know about and we realized they get it completely wrong... which makes you think they probably get it wrong all the time."
 
I had an attorney friend who always called expert witnesses “professional prostitutes”… his and theirs.
George N Romey Added Dec 24, 2018 - 10:10am
Very good article Jeff.  Remember government is tasked with keeping crime under wraps even as the financial condition for most Americans has and continues to take a hit.  Most crimes never go to trial.  A PD simply tells the defendant take a plea deal, do the time because he can't win in Court and the DA's office needs prosecutions.  So how may innocent people get sent to the slammer on trumped up evidence? Most of which have no choice but to do what the PD tells them to.
 
Now on the other the uber rich white collar criminals usually never see a day of prison and often make out like a bandit.  
Even A Broken Clock Added Dec 24, 2018 - 10:28am
Jeff, as others have said, good article. Here's another person to add to your documentation about fraud in forensics:  Fred Zain.  He managed to camouflage himself as a forensic scientist through the '80's and into the '90's in West Virginia until his lack of credentials and his propensity to lie in order to gain convictions finally caught up with him.
 
I do think that with DNA typing, the science is much more settled and is more believable, but you still have issues with chain of custody for evidence. And all of the evidence that you take (see rape kits) is worthless unless it actually is tested to provide detailed information on the DNA.
Doug Plumb Added Dec 24, 2018 - 10:59am
In the face of paid expert testimony, reason doesn't stand a chance. We have seen this in the AGW debate on this forum, as well as in other topics. Paid testimony should be a crime, other testimony cannot receive renumeration.
  Judges and attorneys all take oaths. Oaths themselves only matter when one is forced to go against ones own conscience (reason), otherwise they are meaningless.
  My friends daughter went to have a psych test. She is nine. The psych came back with a report than puts her in the fifth percentile. She isn't, but this report will follow her for many of her days.
  Expert psych witnesses will be used to put people into Bolshevik prisons. It was a tool of the Bolsheviks of the past.
  The courts are going against reason as we slowly transition from Christian common law into Talmudic law, where our rulers "do as thou wilt" with the non chosen people.
 
 
 
Jeff Jackson Added Dec 24, 2018 - 12:11pm
Ward, I like your point. Sometimes our Constitution gets in the way of convicting people, just as it is supposed to, so, in those cases, it is discarded. At some point, we must re-establish the following of it, or else it is meaningless. Thanks for your comments Ward.
Jeff Jackson Added Dec 24, 2018 - 12:16pm
Mr. Burghal, I have similar friends. I got into an argument with one of my law profs over protection. He claimed that the government had no responsibility for protecting me, to which I replied I was fully capable of protecting myself and my family without their help. I also stated that if I had to protect myself, the government had no business asking questions, since the failure was theirs, not mine. He still insisted the government had a role, and I replied if that was cleanup then they may take their place as janitor. Thanks Burghal.
Jeff Jackson Added Dec 24, 2018 - 12:19pm
Thanks Texas, and a very good point. "Experts" are mercenaries for the government in many cases, and, as you pointed out, are usually quite biased for whoever pays them. Their usefulness as witnesses is becoming recognized as biased and, for the most part, unjust. Thanks Texas, interesting and quite valid point.
Jeff Jackson Added Dec 24, 2018 - 12:22pm
Exactly right George. The financial crisis had so many crooks behind it, they would have filled a prison block, but all of them and their pals in the government walked away, handing the bill to the American people. It's not what you know, it's who, in a country that was founded upon the skills of individuals, and not those appointed and favored by the monarch. We are marching backward, and the citizens are being crushed. Thanks George, excellent point.
Jeff Jackson Added Dec 24, 2018 - 12:27pm
Thanks Even. It is rather amazing the unqualified and biased "experts" who are betraying their fellow citizens and violating our fundamental freedom. As I have said, I think the punishments for such crimes against society should be quite severe, but then, they've been lying for the winning team, so they're punished lightly. It's their game, we're just spectators. But those playing such games on the American public have been brought before the bar before, and it seems we need to clean up their act for them, and offer for them the mercy they showed us, which is little. Thanks Even.
Jeff Jackson Added Dec 24, 2018 - 12:33pm
You are exactly right Doug. The Bolsheviks imprisoned many citizens, claiming that they were insane, mostly because they didn't believe the "truth" of their ideology. It was Stalin that was insane, but still quite clever. Personal agendas have no place in the justice system, and those unwilling to recuse themselves need to be removed preferably forever, as objectivity is one of our foundations of justice. Paid mercenaries with their versions of the "truth" are not objective, they're part of the corruption that convicts innocent citizens. Thanks Doug, excellent point.
FacePalm Added Dec 24, 2018 - 10:42pm
target="_blank">Gohmert: Mueller Unmasked
 
You might enjoy the foregoing article, as it goes into some detail in re: Mueller's deliberate prosecution and conviction of those he KNEW to be innocent all along - and worse, he also went to their parole hearings to influence that board to NOT grant parole.  i strongly suspect that he has dragged out his illegitimate "investigation" as long as he has PRECISELY because he fears his OWN indictment.
 
Ward is exactly correct; anyone who hires an attorney has confessed their incompetence and inability to manage their own affairs.  If you attempt to go "pro se," there are a vast myriad of traps into which the unwary fall with depressing regularity, however.
 
If you have been charged under some statute where there is no victim, you have an excellent chance of beating the rap if you can avoid any and all traps the court officers will set to prove they have jurisdiction over you, the natural man(or woman).   They do not have in personam jurisdiction over you, the living man; they only have lawful jurisdiction over the "juristic person" they will assume you are unless and until you challenge and rebut such presumptions...and they will do their level best to trick you into agreeing that they DO have jurisdiction, for example by something as simple as ordering you to sit down.  If you obey without question(e.g. "is that a request, or a demand, judge?"), you will have confessed that they have jurisdiction..."in personam" jurisdiction.  There's also "subject matter" jurisdiction, as well.
 
So for any American who wishes to remain free, there are 3 crucial things to be learned:
1.  Courtroom procedures, including how to file motions and writs, as well as the proper grounds upon which to make objections;
2.  The Rules of Evidence, so as to get yours admitted and your opponents excluded;
3.  To learn and be prepared to rebut every presumption any court would make against you.
 
If, OTOH, there's a damaged/injured party either due to your direct action(assault, battery, vandalism, rape, robbery, etc.), or your negligence, you'd better do all in your power to make amends prior to trial, and/or plead out, or you're screwed - probably for quite some time.
 
Most people don't know, for example, that "the State of" wherever cannot be the claimant, because the 6th Amendment guarantees you that sworn court officers will protect your right to confront your accuser; the inability of "the State" to take the stand so it can be cross-examined violates the 6th Amendment due process guarantee.  Neither can "the state" appoint a representative to take the stand in it's stead, either; can you appoint someone to take YOUR place on the stand?
 
But i'm still learnin'.
Paul Sanders Added Dec 25, 2018 - 6:58am
FacePalm,
 
"i strongly suspect that he has dragged out his illegitimate "investigation" as long as he has PRECISELY because he fears his OWN indictment."
 
Perhaps, but it goes even deeper than that.  People are easily manipulated.  The idea is to drag this investigation out as long as possible to sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of even the most ardent Trump supporters.  Undermine the president in every way possible, is the goal.  He wasn't supposed to win.  They are furious and determined to make sure he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being reelected.
 
I am appalled and disgusted at the entire media for their biased and unadulterated hate towards this president.  It appears that the "guardians of truth" have literally become the guardians of lies and falsehoods.
 
 
Ward Tipton Added Dec 25, 2018 - 7:18am
"It appears that the "guardians of truth" have literally become the guardians of lies and falsehoods."
 
When I was a kid, we just called it propaganda. The social engineering aspects of propaganda were well known to people back in those days. 
FacePalm Added Dec 25, 2018 - 7:21am
Paul-
It's become the "bread and circuses" of an unfortunately-large portion of the easily-manipulated population.  The repeated indulgence of hate - especially, unmerited - has quite deleterious effects upon the bodies and minds of those so engaged. 
What gets me lately is that so many democrats - typically, against war - have now lost their minds because Trump is keeping another promise, to gtfo of these various extremely wasteful and expensive wars and police actions.
 
Last i heard, the reason Mattis and Kelly were fired is that they were leaders of an anti-Trump faction(including deep-staters in the cia) which was literally supplying ISIS in Syria, completely disobeying the orders the President had given them.  i hope he continues to drain the swamp...and accelerates the pace, as well.
 
As far as i am concerned, those who are the most stridently anti-Trump are either witting or unwitting tools of the NWO/OWG cretins, who are seeing their long-laid plans for their world government of unelected bureaucrats, above the law, tax-free bureaucrats, crumbling into dust.  Many of such as these are pedophile satanists who sacrifice victims in their rituals, even eating them.  These horrible people must be stopped - and they feel the same way about Trump and his allies.  From Brazil to the UK, from Italy to Russia, anti-globalist Nationalists are being elected, and this is a Good Thing.  i feel certain the NWO globalists have plotted a counterstrike, and my hope is that nationalists within the intelligence communities are aware of it/them, alert to it/them, and have prepared themselves to take the plotters OUT just as they prepare to launch it.
 
Apologies, Jeff, for the tangent; "we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.,,"
Jeff Jackson Added Dec 25, 2018 - 9:32am
Thanks for your input Facepalm. In court when citing amendments, make sure to cite case law. Judges love case law. Interesting link to Mueller, thanks for that addition, it certainly tells me things I didn't know before. Thanks again Facepalm.
Jeff Jackson Added Dec 25, 2018 - 9:36am
Thanks for your comments Paul, and you are precisely correct, it is all just a scare tactic. How many federal investigations long? They have prosecuted Trump aides for nothing close to anything like the original accusations. If it come up as Trump innocent (and it's looking that way) I suggest we force the originators of the investigation to pay for it out of their own pockets. Thanks Paul, excellent points.
Jeff Jackson Added Dec 25, 2018 - 9:38am
Thanks Facepalm. Related events such as those regarding the Justice Department or the biases of the media are fair game for discussion here. Thanks for your comments Facepalm.
FacePalm Added Dec 25, 2018 - 1:54pm
Jeff-
Thank YOU(especially for not deleting the tangential stuff, which was totally off-topic).
Yeah, Mew-ler is totally a dirty cop.  i didn't even get into the many other things he was up to, like being the bag-man who delivered the uranium ore samples to the Russians, or how he covered up the failures of the FBI to act to forestall the 911 attacks, and multiple other things, ad nauseum.
 
As to courts, what i'm learning is that citing relevant case law is not quite enough; one needs to cite the relevant case law from the APPELLATE courts, as that is "controlling," from what i've been reading...but there so much fraud occurring in courts these days that it's relatively easy to catch court officers up in them, and go after their bonds, in which case they'll learn to let you be...at least, according to this guy.
Ward Tipton Added Dec 25, 2018 - 2:08pm
And also a great many judges with a blatant disregard for the system and whom greatly enjoy power ... because after all, they are right merely because they are the judge. Power makes right you know!
Jeff Jackson Added Dec 25, 2018 - 2:46pm
Yes Ward, I have witnessed first hand "officials" who make decisions based not on law, but on personal agendas. As stated, law that is not objective is not law as described or intended by the founders of this nation. Their removal is another essay. Thanks Ward.
FacePalm Added Dec 25, 2018 - 8:21pm
Jeff, Ward-
From what i've been reading/seeing, it may be a good idea to make a "special" appearance instead of a "general" one, ergo learning the rules applicable to a "special" appearance would be advisable.
Second, get the court on record as confessing that the Constitution is the Supreme Law in their courtroom, as well - since most have posted a bond swearing this is so, they should have little problem admitting this in open court and on the record, especially if you need to resort to the Constitution later in the proceedings.
Tubularsock Added Dec 26, 2018 - 12:30pm
Excellent post Jeff.
 
It made Tubularsock recall a former friend that made himself a very hefty income being an “expert of the court”.
 
His expertise was sophisticated bull shit really and was used for years by the court, coning his way along to financial security.
 
That experience opened Tubularsock’s eyes to just how corrupt the legal system really happens to be and the sad recognition that Justice has NOTHING to do with the system!
Jeff Jackson Added Dec 26, 2018 - 9:09pm
Thanks Tubularsock. One of the more disturbing aspects, but very valuable, are all the comments of those who have seen what was described in the article in real life. Essentially, they are confirming what Dean Mnookin is saying, which proves her point even more. I hope she reads this. Thanks Tubularsock, good and valuable information for our readers to know.
Johnny Fever Added Dec 27, 2018 - 9:24pm
To be sure, on occasion all law enforcement agencies have abused their power and the FBI is the most powerful law enforcement agency we have.  However, not for one second do I believe corruption is rampant and they are secretly taking orders from the Deep State.  What you suggest is just another ridiculous conspiracy theory. 
 
It’s not the fault of the FBI that Martha Stewart lied to the agency.
 
As for transparency, the agency isn’t supposed to be transparent.  It’s supposed to catch bad guys and the last thing it should do is let everyone know its methods.  
 
As for Mnookin, I think what she wrote makes a lot of sense.  If forensic scientists are not educated scientists, it calls into question their scientific research and conclusions.  Seems logical tome. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Dec 28, 2018 - 1:22am
However, not for one second do I believe corruption is rampant 
 
Proving yet again your utter obtusness. 
 
Comey and Mueller were both Director of the Feral Baby Incinerators (FBI) and both are dirty cops. DOJ is even worse. 
 
Mircea Negres Added Dec 28, 2018 - 2:12am
Congratulations on yet another well written article, Mr. Jackson. In my opinion, it started with the idea to give justice, but has degenerated in a tragic farce of conviction rates. In one American case I heard about, a woman's roof caught fire, the house burned down and her family died. She was the only one to make it out, from what I recall. The police's forensics unit led the accusations of arson against her, and she spent years in prison, protesting her innocence the whole time. That is until a scientist took a look at her case and discovered the state's argument was "junk science". What happened was that the waterproofing mat in the woman's roof was made out of newspaper chips which had been treated with a fire retardant. Over the years, leaks had bleached off the fire retardant, some wiring had frayed and eventually sparked, setting off the fire. The scientist concerned proved this to have been the case and eventually the woman was released. It gets worse in the field of psychiatry. In South Africa, I know of two quacks who wrote a bullshit report that destroyed a man, and a third (who had a PhD) who covered it up. Nothing happened to them and nobody is interested in doing justice in this case.
Ward Tipton Added Dec 28, 2018 - 2:38am
Psychology and Psychiatry have always been (extremely) "soft" sciences, based as much on prejudice and bias as anything empirical ... if not substantially more so. 
Jeff Jackson Added Dec 28, 2018 - 9:07am
Johnny, get out your dictionary, oops, I mean Google two words: incompetence and conspiracy. Never, ever, was conspiracy used or implied in the article. The authorities (some of them) are facilitating and encouraging incompetence, but they didn't all agree to do it together, and I neither expressed nor implied any such notion. That the "science" itself doesn't comply with what could be called "science" was the point, and the article. If I believed there was a conspiracy, I would have named (you know, stated the names of specific individuals and held them directly responsible). I am not a conspiracy theorist, and have posted many essays demonstrating their lunacy. Thanks for your comments.
Jeff Jackson Added Dec 28, 2018 - 9:12am
Thanks Mircea. It's a shame that law enforcement cannot enforce the law without being dishonest. As I have said many times, there needs to be more consequences for imprisoning the innocent. I appreciate your perspective and my thanks for demonstrating what a global problem we have here. Thanks Mircea, great perspective.
Jeff Jackson Added Dec 28, 2018 - 3:47pm
Yes Ward, you can get two "shrinks" who come up with completely different diagnoses. Some psychological problems are obvious, some are not. I once was working with someone who was a pathological liar. I asked one of the folks in charge to Google pathological liar and then watch that person. I didn't see that individual again, for whatever reason. The person doing all of the lying really needed help. The diagnosis was easy when they display 90% of the symptoms. I missed an "A" in Clinical only because the anal-retentive prof wouldn't give me or let me earn only 10 more points.
FacePalm Added Jan 1, 2019 - 1:57am
Ah, Jeff - being anal retentive isn't all that bad, especially considering the alternative...
 
"What does Hillary wear out in public these days?"  "Depends..."
Koshersalaami Added Jan 2, 2019 - 11:15am
The FBI has gone both ways in the past few years. During the campaign, the NY FBI office was going heavily after Hillary, not always based on evidence but on working with Giuliani who was going after her for partisan reasons. The Comey letter a week before the election - which gave a false impression because at that point Hillary was not under investigation, her staff was - also went against her. Now the FBI has concerns in the other direction with a lot of input from the intelligence community, which sure as Hell is not a Democrat leaning community. Complaining about the phenomenon is sensible; complaining about the phenomenon one way is hypocrisy. 
 
Concerning the overall point of the post: You get what you incentivize. I could say you get what you reward, but you also don’t get what you punish. If a prosecutor makes money based on a conviction count or conviction percentage, there are going to be a whole lot of instances where justice isn’t served. That’s the price of an adversarial legal system. At this point it’s not a particularly good system. 
 
 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 2, 2019 - 11:28am
I have a friend who is bothered by the fact that I am anal retentive. He feels that being pedantic is quite sufficient ... though I disagree with him definitively. 
Jeff Jackson Added Jan 9, 2019 - 1:42pm
Koshersalaami, law enforcement should be concerned with justice, not how many they convict, but you are correct. The only way to correct the situation in my opinion, if anyone is wrongly convicted, all involved, prosecutor and judge will sever the term sentenced, and if that is death, then they are to be executed within 6 months.
If they had to face what their convicted faced, they's be darn careful about getting the right person and not enhancing their resume of a trip to the governor's office, Thanks Koshersalaami. 

Recent Articles by Writers Jeff Jackson follows.