Forensic experts? Mar 10, 2010 2:37:02 GMT -5
Post by cami on Mar 10, 2010 2:37:02 GMT -5
Here's how the police work:
Go to crime scene
Collect evidence of all types
Find a reasonable suspect based on the evidence (hypothesis)
Then try to build a case that matched the evidence and show motive for the suspect
After doing this- they stop doing the investigation.
They NEVER try to prove a suspect is innocent-ONLY guilty. Thus, they fail in using scientific principles to come to a reasonable conclusion.
If the police tried to prove someone is innocent, and could not. then it would be REASONABLE to assume their assumption or hypothesis is correct that the suspect is guilty. This would lend more credence to their case. But, the police feel it is on the defense to prove the innocense of their client and not theirs. I always thought the truth was the responsibility of everyone, including the police.
I guess there are many who do not agree with this philosophy.
Oh that's baloney. Here you are ASSUMING that this is how a police investigation is conducted. If the evidence coming back points in only one direction, why would you not go in that direction? If they ignore the results of the tests, all pointing to Darlie as the killer, and go after well whom in this case, they'd be direlect in the duties as homicide investigators.
Cops aren't stupid you know. They are experienced, trained investigators. They know when people are lying. And guess what, they're allowed to be suspicious right from the get go. I know I would if I walked into a home where the adults are alive and barely injured and two children are massacred.