Reddit reviews No Magic Wand: The Idealization of Science in Law
We found 1 Reddit comments about No Magic Wand: The Idealization of Science in Law. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Used Book in Good Condition
Also a practicing criminal defence lawyer. Going to analyse this and be a bit of a devil's advocate.
>The car - Colburn called in to dispatch asking them to run plate numbers that turn out to be Teresa Halbech's, and after she tells him its a missing person's car, he tells the dispatcher "99 Toyota?", which she confirms. He had no real explanation on the stand. He looked like a deer in the headlights under questioning. Really strong proof Colburn was involved in moving the car to Avery's property.
No - not "really strong proof". It's a circumstantial suggestion that Colburn moved the RAV4 to the Avery salvage yard. It doesn't prove that he did so. Circumstantial proof can only be relied upon for a conviction if the ONLY logical inference from that circumstance is guilt. If there is any other logical inference that can be drawn that favours innocence, that must be favoured.
is it shady? Yeah. Does it raise reasonable doubt to the prosecution case? Yes! But does it prove Colburn moved the car? No.
> The key - They searched that room for days, and the cabinet. ... A key with blood on it, found by the same officer who knew about the blood vial because he had been in charge of transmitting it earlier, a blood vial that had been compromised and had blood drawn from it.
This is the really compelling evidence of police planting the DNA evidence. Yes, it's circumstantial again, but this time what are the logical inferences?
Yeah. The only logical inference from those circumstances is that Lenk planted the evidence.
> This is the place where he "shot" her in their theory, but they can't find a trace of blood on ANYTHING in a garage strewn with a hundred objects. They can't find blood seeped into cracks in the concrete they tear up.
This is also really telling. The house is pretty grotty. It's very hoarder-esque. But NOTHING got blood spatter on it? From what was, by Dassey's description, a violent and bloodthirsty crime?
It beggars belief.
> Just a guess, of course, but we know the judge wasn't bothered by admitting a test that can produce false negatives. And juries are often in awe of FBI forensics. It's like magic to them. You can practically hear the CSI theme song running in their heads.
The damn CSI effect. I've seen judges lose their shit in criminal trials in Australia when the jury foreperson has requested further forensic evidence. "It's not like TV! You have to make your decision based on the evidence available, not the evidence that you think can be found via the magic of forensic testing that doesn't exist outside of TV land!!"
Some good reading on the topic:
> The confession of the nephew - That confession might have me more angry than the planting of the evidence. No one should be able to watch that tape and think that confession has an ounce of validity to it.
Me too. I've represented a lot of children in criminal matters and a lot of people with intellectual disabilities. The way that Dassey is interrogated is awful. He is clearly just guessing and fishing around for what he thinks the investigators want to hear. It's the most striking example of gratuitous concurrence. There is no way that "confession" should have been permitted in court.
> I feel confident Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey are innocent.
I'm confident Dassey is innocent. I'm very open to being persuaded that Avery is innocent.
But you know what? None of that really matters. What matters is that the investigation, prosecution and trial were such a sham, such a violation of fair trial rights. The Prosecution could not, should not have been able to discharge its burden of proof: to prove the elements of the offence of homicide beyond reasonable doubt.