
How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars - ClintEhrlich
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-profiler-wrongful-conviction-20170720-htmlstory.html
======
danso
Worth noting that the submitter of this story, user ClintEhrlich, played a
main role in freeing the wrongly-convicted man. He posted about it on HN a
couple years back, in a highly upvoted and discussed thread (500+ upvotes,
200+ comments):
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12010760](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12010760)

Edit: it's an ironic coincidence that this follow-up feature was published on
the same day of the news of O.J. Simpson's parole:
[http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oj-simpson-parole-
board-...](http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oj-simpson-parole-
board-20170720-story.html)

Simpson is being paroled for a robbery conviction 9 years ago but of course
his most famous run-in with the law was when he was acquitted of double-murder
despite a huge amount of forensic evidence linking him to the homicides (he
later lost a civil suit, which has a lower standard of evidence).

In the case described by the OP, the jury voted to convict in the total
absence of physical, forensic evidence. It's astonishing that this profiler's
beliefs were enough to sway the jury beyond a reasonable doubt but even more
grotesque is how a clusterfuck of dumb, unverified assumptions led the
profiler to his conclusions. He blames the detectives for not doing
"Investigation 101", and says he would not have testified if only he had known
the detectives were so negligent.

As much blame as the profiler deserves (he basically comes off as reliable as
a psychic), seems like a large portion of blame should go to the district
attorney, who presumably knew he was so short of evidence that he had to base
his case on the profiler's testimony. Can't imagine what was going through the
jury's heads; prosecutors often complain how modern juries demand the presence
of DNA because of how TV dramas like CSI portray and hype DNA and other
evidence as ubiquitous and unimpeachable, but this jury seems to have had the
completely opposite mindset.

~~~
rufusroflpunch
My feeling has always been that we should reengineer our jury system. Jurists
should be professionals, not a random nobody pulled from the community. They
should be independent, private employees with a code of ethics and training in
skepticism and the sciences of statistics and evidence. Also, they could
specialize in fields relevant to certain cases. In our current system, we look
for the most ignorant juries so that the lawyers can fill their heads with
whatever knowledge they please, unencumbered by facts.

In the new system, professional jurists would be paid for by the courts, but
not directly employed by them or the government. The prosecution and defense
could have their pick that they must agree on just like now, but they would be
basing their pick on the professional reputation of the jurist, not
exploitable characteristics or ignorance.

~~~
white-flame
I have heard that the intent of the term "trial by peers" was that the jury
should be full of people with understanding and similarly experienced to the
accused, so they would be well-versed in the specific nuance and details
around the accusations. Like if a banker was on trial for financial crimes,
the jury should be randomly selected bankers.

Jury selection today specifically selects against "peers" of the accused. (and
as you also mentioned, against "peers" of anything in general :-P )

~~~
michaelmrose
Peers in context are your fellow citizens nothing more.

~~~
bryanrasmussen
Peers is a word that could be unpacked to mean more than just fellow citizens
though, and to prove that it originally meant only fellow citizens runs into
all the problems inherent in authorial intent multiplied by the number of
people who worked on the constitution. Hence the need for supreme court
interpretation.

Peers in context have been interpreted to mean your fellow citizens, nothing
more.

Although I'd like to note that letting a jury of bankers sit on a financial
crime might mean no banker ever got convicted. So the whole more exacting
definition of peers argument has some definite problems.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Peers is a word that could be unpacked to mean more than just fellow
> citizens though, and to prove that it originally meant only fellow citizens
> runs into all the problems inherent in authorial intent multiplied by the
> number of people who worked on the constitution.

No, it absolutely does not, because neither the phrase nor any alternative
phrase on the subject incorporating a reference to “peers” appears in the
Constitution, which instead provides (in the Sixth Amendment) for an
“impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been
committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law”. (It
is a common rephrasing of a guarantee—“the lawful judgment of his peers”—in
_Magna Carta_ which unmistakably was an product of the barons’ insistence that
members of their formal social station should render verdicts against them.)

------
neaden
Profiling, like much of "criminal science" such as Arson Investigation is a
large part unsubstantiated bullshit. It's amazing how poorly regulated all of
it is and how many innocent people are in prison, or executed, because of it.

~~~
gaius
DNA testing too, complete nonsense

~~~
jstewartmobile
Unfair sarcasm. DNA is one of the _very_ few forensic tools with any hard
science behind it. Even fingerprints can lead to highly conflicting "expert"
opinions.

~~~
louithethrid
You can get "DNA" at every barbershop. Every overtrusted tool will become a
weakspot.

~~~
loeg
And you leave fingerprints on everything you touch. But, it's all we've got as
far as hard evidence aside from testimony and camera recording.

~~~
matwood
Basically all we have is camera recordings because 'eye-witness' testimony is
notoriously bad.

~~~
syshum
Machine Learning will put a stop to that there are several project right now
working completely fabricate audio and video in realistic ways...

~~~
gaius
Yep check these guys out:
[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/24/voice_stealing_lyre...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/24/voice_stealing_lyrebird/)

------
oh_sigh
This Safarik guy sounds like a real piece of shit. Absolutely zero remorse for
telling a tall tale in front of a judge and jury which led to a man spending
11 years in prison for something he didn't do.

> “Like other killers I’ve known, he’s also arrogant and narcissistic — fatal
> traits that led to his demise,” Safarik says. “This was all his doing….
> Ultimately, he was responsible for it.”

I only see arrogance and narcissism coming from one person in the story told,
and it wasn't from Jennings.

~~~
warent
His ego does seem completely out of control. Safarik seems to take himself way
too seriously while simultaneously treating other people with little regard

~~~
zaroth
Well, after all, he worked for the FBI.

------
kens
I've been skeptical of FBI profilers ever since they declared that the
Unabomber had attended college or trade school but not graduated. [1] It
turned out that he had a PhD and had been a professor.

[1] [http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Mixed-Success-for-FBI-
Age...](http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Mixed-Success-for-FBI-Agents-in-
Profiling-2987140.php)

------
winter_blue
Is there any possibility of this man Safarik being punished? Can Safarik be
sued and held accountable for destroying eleven years of an innocent man's
life?

I feel like some sort punishment is due towards ruthless opportunistic people
like these. (I would say the same about the people who pursued Swartz even
after MIT & JSTOR dropped the case.)

~~~
marcoperaza
> _I feel like some sort punishment is due towards ruthless opportunistic
> people like these. (I would say the same about the people who pursued Swartz
> even after MIT & JSTOR dropped the case.)_

How could you possibly prosecute people for the Swartz case? They were simply
seeking the punishment that the law specifies. If you don't like the law, then
lobby to have it changed. If you want it to be less vigorously enforced, then
vote for a President/Governor/DA that will enforce it less vigorously. You
can't put people in jail for following the law.

~~~
Retric
There is following the law, and there is knowingly conviction of an innocent.
This is the second one, and IMO there really should be penalties for this.

~~~
stevenh
Now I'm wondering what it would be like if fake honeypot cases with actors
scripted with an obviously inappropriate implicit offer of a seemingly
lucrative reward for straying from true justice were routinely run as a part
of policy to catch bad lawyers and judges. I don't see how it could hurt for
them to be subjected to ongoing surprise tests of whether they're worthy of
being involved in the justice system. Heck, let's extend it to politicians
while we're at it.

------
gumby
The big crime is how little epistemological support there is for some of the
big forensic tools (fingerprints, DNA, bite marks, arson spread, etc), how
little interest there is in researching these areas, and how trusted they are.

But I am curious: apart from TV shows, how important is this kind of evidence
in most trials? Is it actually uncommon?

~~~
ch4s3
From what I understand DNA has gotten pretty good when used responsibly, but
the rest are no better than reading a chicken's entrails. Have I perhaps been
misinformed about DNA?

~~~
pyre
Is comparing fingerprints _really_ "no better than reading a chicken's
entrails?" I could understand things like trying to guess based on
similarities with a partial print, but comparing two full prints seems like it
would be pretty easy.

~~~
ch4s3
You would think, but even "experts" on fingerprinting call it at best an art.
It can be affected by bias[1], and there's no standard for declaring a
match[2](same case as [1]).

> I could understand things like trying to guess based on similarities with a
> partial print

That's really the rub, pun intended I guess, there are no clean neatly pressed
fingerprints left on object collected by police, generally speaking.

[1][http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211368113...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211368113000028)

[2][http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fingerprints-infallible-
evidence...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fingerprints-infallible-evidence/)

~~~
wyldfire
The stuff in this thread about fingerprints matching algorithms and DNA lab
errors -- does that mean we shouldn't even use it as exculpatory evidence?

~~~
Retric
It's easier for evidence to say the person is innocent than guilty. Ex: a
blurry video of a white guy. It's in no way enough to show which white person
did it, but it is enough to show no black person did.

------
icelancer
What is fair compensation for innocent victims put behind bars?

When wrongly convicted inmates are freed from prison, I think it reasonable to
remunerate them per year of jail time, with accelerating penalties (as more
years are lost to jail, opportunity is taken away at an accelerating rate; 20
years lost to prison is far more than 10 times worse than 2 years lost to
prison, for example).

The base rate of $550,000 tax-free per year for lost work/family/life
opportunity and pain/suffering seems eminently fair to me, with escalating
amounts per year, as stated before. Probably could get behind a permanent
waiver of personal income tax for life on any income under $200,000/year as
well.

~~~
goodells
I agree that the victims of false imprisonment deserve a heck of a lot more
than they get now, but one thing to consider is that mandating things like
this may lead to fewer convictions being overturned due to the costs it would
incur. It wouldn't help at all if the requirements just keep more innocent
people in prison longer.

------
peterburkimsher
"Safarik spent more than a decade studying serial killings, sexual assaults
and stalking cases."

no history of gang crime, "didn't have a boyfriend or a criminal record",
"wallet left", "Mustang wasn’t taken", "parking lot was lighted and
patrolled", Her tube top was pulled down exposing her breasts." -> "sexual
assault”. "wipes his hand over his brow" -> guilty.

Imagine Safarik was a Machine Learning algorithm. More than a decade's worth
of training data led to a model that predicted Jennings to be guilty.

The counter-evidence (phone missing, no scratch marks) wasn't part of the
model.

In his defence, Safarik denies "assigning too much weight to [evidence]. It
was the totality of things that shaped his finding."

Likewise, it is difficult to fix errors in a Machine Learning model once it is
trained. The "totality of things" is the history of other crimes the model has
investigated.

Can Deep Learning do the same job as criminal profilers? Are they as accurate?
Should their predictions be trusted, when the consequence of failure is 11
years of prison for an innocent man?

------
Zigurd
Evidence handling and testing should be independent of law enforcement and
prosecution. It should be handled the way environmental testing or weights-
and-measures are tested by state authorities - with no incentive to "win" on
behalf of prosecutors.

------
Steeeve
I remember this case from when it happened. I can't believe it's been that
long. It seemed pretty obvious at the time that the parking lot guard was
innocent. The DA was stuck on the idea that if he was doing his job he would
have made her leave. And if he didn't make her leave, he must have murdered
her. It just didn't pass the sniff test.

~~~
nerpderp83
Does he float? If he sinks, he wasn't a witch.

------
SeanDav
Might as well convict a person based on tea leaves....

~~~
0xdeadbeefbabe
Or HN Karma

------
nerpderp83
So a good story teller who can weave physical items into a cohesive narrative.
Shouldn't these folks work for Disney and not the justice system?

