@JeanLouiseFinch wrote:
RE: Last night's new conversation on The Interview Room
Chris' guests included the usuals; John Lamb, Gary Brucatto, Don Ahrens, and occasional guest Dan Stover. Collectively they have 100+ years experience in law enforcement. Based on what they know and their years of experience, without saying the name and making an outright accusation, it's obvious who they all think is involved.
As it often happens with these discussions, it was a lot of rehashing of already known information. Brucatto went through some examples of how LE hones in on a suspect. Something I thought was interesting was how each of the guests on the panel answered as to how they would have responded if they were the one who received the call to go to the scene - all would have acted similarly. From the moment they arrive, they are thinking about the potential court case that could eventually happen. They know the questions that will be asked, they know how defense lawyers will pick things apart so getting everything right, right from the start, is essential. They all went through how they would observe the scene, how they would preserve the scene, what they would take into evidence, how they would separate individuals for questioning, etc. and how their career long practices were in direct contrast to what actually happened. The Guthrie case was a total screw up from the beginning. The homicide detective and investigator assigned to manage the scene had no experience. That's a leadership failure. Overlooking evidence and releasing the scene too early was a mistake and the commander should have corrected that. The panel also agreed that when the home was released back to the family all evidence would have/should have been collected so the home should have been cleaned for them, such as removing the blood from the porch rather than allow it to remain and create the public media spectacle. They also would have restricted all the media from staying on Nancy's street for days and weeks.
So, not much new but I still find it interesting when they state the questions they would ask, how they detail the LE's flaws and failings, and what does and doesn't make sense.
I made it about ten minutes into that episode. That was enough for me.
It's not about the number of years on the job that's important. It's about the quality of your work, it's about your integrity, it's about your productivity, and your humanity. I've never heard them mention their conviction rates, their clearence rates.
Yes, admittedly I don't care to watch. I have my reasons. Mainly I can't get past the Good Old Boys vibe. Wonder if they obtained their positions through merit, civil service requirements, competitive exams or something else like being part of the Good Old Boys Club. The same type of club they take snipes at Nano over.
But I digress. I left the show when they started talking about viewing an investigation from a prosecutor's point of view. Hogwash. You're not a prosecutor. Do your job thoroughly, professionally, and the prosecution takes care of itself. Of course you anticipate questions, but you quell them with a solid investigation. Cover all bases.
And part of doing that is to look at as many known players as possible. You consider individuals A, B, and C and show that you can eliminate them by X, Y, and Z. So a defense attorney can't suggest you focus from the beginning solely on his client. So why the repeated questioning about an area or point of focus in some aspects of this investigation?
And seriously, have there been any investigations with any local departments they haven't had issues with? Comment, speculate and critique, the stuff their content is made of. Pick their target of the week.
But from the beginning this group, other than Dr. Brucato have played the statistics and reached for that low hanging fruit.
I am a little curious to see their responses will be once the actual actors are apprehended.
Blogs & Forums
Forums
Blogs
