|
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and this is just guessing mind you, and say that her team perhaps maybe possibly lost.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
mind the walrus posted:I don't follow sports, why would the lady be crying? Someone poo poo in her flute
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:I got that much but what? Is it some big game or something? Is it the final play and Villanova just blew it? They were the #1 seed in the tournament and pretty much the favorite and got upset in the first game (the gif) I imagine there were a lot of crying people that put easy money on Villanova too
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Chromatic posted:The detective told him his rights at the beginning I thought. At the very least, he told him that he can walk away at any time and can contact a lawyer. The Reid Technique is really risky that way because it's easy to make it work. If you've got all the evidence you want and you just need a confession to clinch it, you can goad the suspect into admitting guilt and have an airtight case. But if you have a weak case, you can also use it to just force a confession out of an innocent person who isn't strong enough to hold their ground. That's what ended up happening with Cory Armishaw. Jim Smyth admitted to knowing that their case was weak (they didn't even have a suspect at the time, let alone evidence that Armishaw did it) and basically needing a confession to actually convict anyone, and he was convinced that Armishaw was guilty anyway. Didn't really have proof, but he figured he was right; the guy's the boyfriend of the dead baby's mom, so he's an easy suspect number one. So he pretended that he had the evidence and convinced Armishaw that he was going to prison no matter what, and the only thing he could do was try to save his reputation by confessing before going behind bars for a very long time. Luckily, other people saw through it and realized that a likely innocent man was being manipulated into confessing for something he didn't commit and got the case thrown out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:I got that much but what? Is it some big game or something? Is it the final play and Villanova just blew it? She promised her boyfriend anal if Villanova lost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:So he pretended that he had the evidence and convinced Armishaw that he was going to prison no matter what, and the only thing he could do was try to save his reputation by confessing before going behind bars for a very long time. Yeah that's sort of the inherent problem with the Reid Technique, the cop can just go in and pretend to have a mountain of evidence against even an innocent person and if the suspect doesn't really understand their rights and/or is insufficiently strong-willed, you can convince them that playing along with you is their only chance to mitigate their supposed predicament a little bit (and even that part is bullshit, since that's what courts are for, not cops). Smyth goes through the exact same steps with Russell Williams, although in that case I think the tire-tread and footprint evidence he uses to crack Williams was actually real and not bullshit. That said I would still like to have Jim Smyth read me bedtime stories to lull me to sleep at night
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
~That's not something that props can fix, that's gonna be a little harder to fix~
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
tacodaemon posted:Yeah that's sort of the inherent problem with the Reid Technique, the cop can just go in and pretend to have a mountain of evidence against even an innocent person and if the suspect doesn't really understand their rights and/or is insufficiently strong-willed, you can convince them that playing along with you is their only chance to mitigate their supposed predicament a little bit (and even that part is bullshit, since that's what courts are for, not cops). Smyth goes through the exact same steps with Russell Williams, although in that case I think the tire-tread and footprint evidence he uses to crack Williams was actually real and not bullshit. Yeah, the evidence against Williams was legit, like they matched a bootprint found at the scene to a boot recovered from his home and matched tire treads from the scene to his Nissan Pathfinder. His arrest opened up a ton of other cases where an unknown suspect had broken into homes to sexually assault women, as they could now start connecting them to Williams and it was becoming apparent that they had caught a serial rapist. A confession was just needed to help with an already good case against him. The dude even had 48 pairs of stolen women's underwear neatly cataloged within his home. When the interrogation was over, he told the cops where they could find all the evidence in his home and where he buried the body.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
tacodaemon posted:Yeah that's sort of the inherent problem with the Reid Technique, the cop can just go in and pretend to have a mountain of evidence against even an innocent person and if the suspect doesn't really understand their rights and/or is insufficiently strong-willed, you can convince them that playing along with you is their only chance to mitigate their supposed predicament a little bit (and even that part is bullshit, since that's what courts are for, not cops). Smyth goes through the exact same steps with Russell Williams, although in that case I think the tire-tread and footprint evidence he uses to crack Williams was actually real and not bullshit. The "Making a Murderer" series on Netflix brings up some interesting points in this regard. (Not for this case, but for the interview techniques.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Someone poo poo in her flute I almost spit my drink all over my monitor when I read this, you're aces in my book.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:~That's not something that props can fix, that's gonna be a little harder to fix~ She was gonna get hot snakes if she ate there anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Yeah, the evidence against Williams was legit, like they matched a bootprint found at the scene to a boot recovered from his home and matched tire treads from the scene to his Nissan Pathfinder. His arrest opened up a ton of other cases where an unknown suspect had broken into homes to sexually assault women, as they could now start connecting them to Williams and it was becoming apparent that they had caught a serial rapist. A confession was just needed to help with an already good case against him. The dude even had 48 pairs of stolen women's underwear neatly cataloged within his home. When the interrogation was over, he told the cops where they could find all the evidence in his home and where he buried the body. Section 9 posted:The "Making a Murderer" series on Netflix brings up some interesting points in this regard. (Not for this case, but for the interview techniques.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
HairyManling posted:This brings up a whole lot of questions regarding the fifth amendment and self incrimination and so on. But seriously, are there many confirmed cases where a truly innocent person has been jailed because the detectives leaned a bit heavy on the interrogation techniques? I'm not being snarky, I am legitimately asking. I know cases exist where shaky eye-witness testimony, or faulty early DNA/forensic science has put an otherwise innocent person in prison exist, but are there many cases where a person who wasn't schizophrenic or otherwise mentally disabled or easily tricked into confession a common thing? I agree that the letter of the law needs to be black and white without ambiguity, but this guy was guilty as gently caress, even if he was lead into admitting it through coercive means. I cannot imagine that happening to me unless I was truly the person guilty of hurting these people. It's just a quick at-a-glance stat, but The Innocence Project lists 93 False Confessions or Admissions out of the 336 people they've exonerated with DNA evidence. http://www.innocenceproject.org <- Poke around here for more details. It's easy enough to say that you could never imagine yourself caving to an interrogation, but I bet you also can't imagine yourself ever being the primary suspect in a murder investigation. I suspect that one's world view starts to teeter a bit once that happens. Edit: Oh hey! They even have a graph. 
Skippy McPants has a new favorite as of 08:33 on Jan 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
HairyManling posted:This brings up a whole lot of questions regarding the fifth amendment and self incrimination and so on. But seriously, are there many confirmed cases where a truly innocent person has been jailed because the detectives leaned a bit heavy on the interrogation techniques? I'm not being snarky, I am legitimately asking. I know cases exist where shaky eye-witness testimony, or faulty early DNA/forensic science has put an otherwise innocent person in prison exist, but are there many cases where a person who wasn't schizophrenic or otherwise mentally disabled or easily tricked into confession a common thing? I agree that the letter of the law needs to be black and white without ambiguity, but this guy was guilty as gently caress, even if he was lead into admitting it through coercive means. I cannot imagine that happening to me unless I was truly the person guilty of hurting these people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Rivera_%28wrongful_conviction%29 shows me that a great way to make it rich quick is to cave and give a false confession under interrogation and then sue their pants off when you're proven innocent! Wait, this isn't the lifehack thread
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
In britain there was a whole bunch of people locked up for like 20 years because they looked "a bit irish" and so the investigators got coerced confessions out of them as well as some bullshit evidence. This was around the time of the anti irish hysteria during the troubles so that's why.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
HairyManling posted:This brings up a whole lot of questions regarding the fifth amendment and self incrimination and so on. But seriously, are there many confirmed cases where a truly innocent person has been jailed because the detectives leaned a bit heavy on the interrogation techniques? I'm not being snarky, I am legitimately asking. I know cases exist where shaky eye-witness testimony, or faulty early DNA/forensic science has put an otherwise innocent person in prison exist, but are there many cases where a person who wasn't schizophrenic or otherwise mentally disabled or easily tricked into confession a common thing? I agree that the letter of the law needs to be black and white without ambiguity, but this guy was guilty as gently caress, even if he was lead into admitting it through coercive means. I cannot imagine that happening to me unless I was truly the person guilty of hurting these people. Part of the problem is: in cases where someone was convicted purely based on their confession, how can you be sure whether the police "leaned too heavily" or not?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
Triarii posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Rivera_%28wrongful_conviction%29 shows me that a great way to make it rich quick is to cave and give a false confession under interrogation and then sue their pants off when you're proven innocent! quote:After his release, Rivera's attorneys asked the courts to order genetic testing on Rivera's shoes, which the prosecution had tried to enter into evidence in 1993. The shoes had Staker's blood on them, but the prosecution withdrew the evidence prior to Rivera's first trial when it was discovered that the shoes were not available for sale anywhere in the United States until after the murder. DNA testing conducted on the shoes in 2015 indicated that the blood indeed belonged to Staker, but also contained another genetic sample – one that matched the semen sample. Rivera's defense team insists that this is proof not only that the blood was planted, but that the real killer's DNA was inadvertently planted as well. The DNA has yet to be matched to an individual but has been linked to DNA from another home invasion and murder. The man convicted of that crime also claims he was wrongfully convicted. Holy poo poo 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
Watching that colonel sweat it out during that interview reminded me of another video of a creepy dude. It was an interview with some guy (I think he had long hair) who claimed to be the close friend of this girl who'd gone missing. He's blathering a lot the whole time, and you can see he's getting nervous when the interviewer mentions police found the body. Turns out the guy was the murderer, surprise surprise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
Triarii posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Rivera_%28wrongful_conviction%29 shows me that a great way to make it rich quick is to cave and give a false confession under interrogation and then sue their pants off when you're proven innocent! quote:...1992 rape and murder of 11-year-old Holly Staker... quote:DNA testing done in 2004 on semen taken from the crime scene ruled out Rivera as the source; however, the prosecution argued that the semen sample came from previous consensual sex with another man, and Rivera was convicted a third time. quote:The evidence presented by the prosecution to support Staker's being sexually active was evidence concerning an incident when she was molested at the age of 8 and an incident of masturbation, and extensive testimony about a pair of red lace panties that she owned.  gently caress the police for real man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
Rough Lobster posted:Watching that colonel sweat it out during that interview reminded me of another video of a creepy dude. It was an interview with some guy (I think he had long hair) who claimed to be the close friend of this girl who'd gone missing. He's blathering a lot the whole time, and you can see he's getting nervous when the interviewer mentions police found the body. Turns out the guy was the murderer, surprise surprise. This dude? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIroLgiCyP8
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Legitimate complaint? They weren't complaining about noise or stench or disrepair or a meth lab or anything like that - they were concerned that the apartments were being rented to "strangers" and "tourists" instead of long-term renters. Why's it any of their business? All they were complaining about were violations of arbitrary city ordinances, and when they ratted on their neighbors they found out they themselves were living in violation of arbitrary city ordinances (again, there's no safety issue alleged about their units). First, it's illegal. Second, the use of apartments for AirBnB causes rent to go up because it takes legitimate rental properties off the market and turns them into hotels, again illegally. San Francisco is notorious for this because rent is already high, and a lot of apartments are being used for AirBnB instead of rental units, something that could potentially lower the rent. Also, this lady was not in the wrong, it was their landlord.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:I got that much but what? Is it some big game or something? Is it the final play and Villanova just blew it? They lost to NC State. That's like getting beat by a wheelchair-league team.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
Azhais posted:They were the #1 seed in the tournament and pretty much the favorite and got upset in the first game (the gif) It had to be the second round if they were a 1 seed. No way NC State was a 16 seed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
I just looked it up and NC State was seeded 8 in their region; not too bad of an upset, all things considered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
Azhais posted:They were the #1 seed in the tournament and pretty much the favorite and got upset in the first game (the gif) It ended okay for her though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJfBWrjcl4I
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:First, it's illegal. Second, the use of apartments for AirBnB causes rent to go up because it takes legitimate rental properties off the market and turns them into hotels, again illegally. San Francisco is notorious for this because rent is already high, and a lot of apartments are being used for AirBnB instead of rental units, something that could potentially lower the rent. Also, this lady was not in the wrong, it was their landlord. Also let's not forget, if you pay for an apartment, you don't want to live in a hotel. People coming and going who don't care about the property makes for a worse existence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
The part where he sits down dumbfounded 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Zartosht posted:
God drat. Wiki posted:Rivera's first conviction was overturned and he was retried in 1998. Taylor Arena, the child whom Staker had been babysitting, testified at this trial. Arena, who was only 2 years old at the time of Staker's murder and 8 at the time of the retrial, testified that she remembered the events of the evening and identified Rivera as the man who had attacked Staker. Convicted on the testimony of an 8 year old remembering things from when they were 2.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Kikka posted:The part where he sits down dumbfounded He was apparently fascinated with "the perfect crime", but there was some screwup with the garbage collection that led to the body being discovered, and he completely unravelled from there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
If you want an in-depth look at how hosed up police work can be try Undisclosed : The State vs. Adnan Syed podcast. It picks up where the Serial podcast ended. The amount of stupidity and active fuckery during the whole process of gathering evidence and eventual trial is truly shocking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Elohssa Gib posted:This one froze on me so I GIS'd it to see what it was and found a great Tumblr for this. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
   
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
I wish they had the longer version showing everything else s/he hit before entering World 1-2
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:http://www.innocenceproject.org <- Poke around here for more details. It's easy enough to say that you could never imagine yourself caving to an interrogation, but I bet you also can't imagine yourself ever being the primary suspect in a murder investigation. I suspect that one's world view starts to teeter a bit once that happens. In Armishaw's case, Smyth convinced him that they had insurmountable evidence that he was the killer. As far as we know, he wasn't; the cops didn't even have a suspect named and it was still ambiguous as to whether or not the death was intentional (it was identified as shaken baby syndrome, which can easily be an accident). But Armishaw thought that he was going to prison as the murderer anyway, and thus had no way out except confessing and pretending to be sorry about it to look better in public after his name was released. So it doesn't even need to involve "caving to an interrogation". If you're someone who trusts the police not to lie and they say that they have a ton of evidence that you committed a crime and are definitely going to go to prison if it goes to trial, are you going to just stay silent and try to fight it in court?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:In Armishaw's case, Smyth convinced him that they had insurmountable evidence that he was the killer. As far as we know, he wasn't; the cops didn't even have a suspect named and it was still ambiguous as to whether or not the death was intentional (it was identified as shaken baby syndrome, which can easily be an accident). But Armishaw thought that he was going to prison as the murderer anyway, and thus had no way out except confessing and pretending to be sorry about it to look better in public after his name was released. Well there's your problem. I think everyone over the age of 13 needs to be sat down by their parents and told not to trust the police moving forward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Well there's your problem. I think everyone over the age of 13 needs to be sat down by their parents and told not to trust the police moving forward. Unfortunately, it's really common (especially on the right-wing side of things) to have total faith in the police and fully accept everything they do and their explanations and excuses as gospel. Any complaints are excused as "just a bunch of low-lifes whining that they got caught breaking the law". If the complainer can't be called a low-life who got caught breaking the law, replace with a long rant about how much cops risks their lives for our safety and freedom and we should be thankful that they don't let thugs overrun us and rape our wives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...t-a6797076.html (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWAI7h1cEEo poor quality youtube version if above link doesn't work for you. For those who don't know the format, Come Dine with Me is a British reality show (its spawned international clones now I believe). 4 contestants take turns playing host for dinner to the other 3. After each one they vote and the one with the most points by the end wins £1000. Its known for its very funny narrator. Mega Comrade has a new favorite as of 19:57 on Jan 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
I do love me a good "What the hell did you think was gonna happen?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
Got him right in the main office.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:58
|
|