<
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/01/06/propublica-exposes-even-more-cop-junk-science-using-911-calls-to-determine-if-people-are-lying/>
"Cops like science. Not in the way that say,
scientists like science. They
just like science-y sounding mumbo jumbo that paves the way for criminal
convictions.
And, sure, maybe you’re thinking this only applies to backwoods agencies that
prefer to use a combination of Aunt Cleo and questionable testimony to lock
people up. But it’s not just low-tech, underfunded departments with few
investigative options. It’s also the DOJ and the FBI, both of which have
continued to support forensic junk science despite admitting the science isn’t
solid and that their “expert” witnesses have routinely misrepresented the
accuracy of their findings.
Anybody who claims they can tell someone is lying or is otherwise suspicious
just by watching or talking to them for a few minutes is lying to themselves,
if not to jurors and judges. Claimed characteristics of suspected criminals
overlap common human behavior so much that the Venn diagram is a single circle.
A successful cop guess isn’t something that should be backdated as “behavioral
detection.” Winning on a roll of the dice does happen. That it happens isn’t
the result of anything the dice roller did.
And yet, cops continue to pay for the opportunity (with tax dollars obv) to be
talked into believing their instincts are not only correct, but backed by
actual science. The market for preaching to the converted — as well as those
willing to convert — is immense. Cops who think they can actually distinguish
one pair of mass-produced jeans from another pair simply by staring at
low-quality CCTV footage are pretty much willing to believe anything. And
they’re willing to use tax dollars to pretend their wild ass guesses are backed
by science.
More junk science is upon us, wielded by people with the power to end lives and
deprive people of their freedom. This latest report comes to us from
ProPublica, which uncovered certain law enforcement agencies’ reliance on
speculative fiction (i.e. “forensic science”) to convert writing samples pulled
from statements to police into admissible evidence — despite there being no
evidence (IRONY!) this was any more accurate than tossing coins to determine
guilt.
If you think looking at people’s written statements is a stupid way to
determine whether someone’s lying, just wait for this one. According to this
ProPublica report by Brett Murphy, one person (and his law enforcement
students) are convinced they can establish guilt by cherry-picking words and
phrases from 911 calls."
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
