
Junk Arson Science Sent Claude Garrett to Prison for Murder 25 Years Ago - danso
https://theintercept.com/2018/10/05/claude-garrett-parole-arson-fire-junk-science/
======
edoo
Horrifying. The entire legal system is supposed to be based on the concept
that it is better to let the guilty walk than destroy an innocent person.
Instead of evidence they used federal agents as expert witnesses providing
evidence free accusation. It is almost like prosecutors pursue cases based on
the likelihood of winning instead of actual evidence.

~~~
nvahalik
> The entire legal system is supposed to be based on the concept that it is
> better to let the guilty walk than destroy an innocent person.

This is true if you believe that there is a final justice. However, in a
secularizing society that doesn’t believe in God or final judgement, if you
want justice it has to be here and now since it will not come any other way.

~~~
nerdponx
On the contrary, how can you rationalize locking up an innocent person
_unless_ you believe they will be redeemed at The End?

~~~
bendotero
I get the logic here. But in many religions god is the source of justice. Got
no idea if OP is a Christian or not but there are plenty of judicial
proceedings in portions of the Bible that lots of Christians overlook,
particularly about the requirement for at the least two or three witnesses
(which doesn't necessitate eyewitness but at least two credible witnesses)
before a conviction takes place. There is also plenty of case law in the
Hebrew scriptures about not imprisoning or punishing someone if there is no
evidence (e.g. establishment of sanctuary cities for accused persons to go to
while a just trial is pending).

~~~
jki275
Just to pick a small nit here, OT law is not considered binding on Christians
today by most Christian theologies.

It's valuable for understanding the NT, but not considered binding as law.

------
OskarS
If you haven't read The New Yorker story about Cameron Todd Willingham, a man
(almost certainly innocent) who was executed in Texas based on junk arson
science, you should rectify that as soon as possible:
[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-
fire](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire)

~~~
DubiousPusher
And it gets worse.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/08/03/fresh-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/08/03/fresh-
doubts-over-a-texas-execution/?utm_term=.d0f937abb1d5)

------
garyfirestorm
What processes need to fall in place to systematically reevaluate all the old
arson cases? This seems like a data problem that needs indexing and
reevaluating. I know it's not that simple, but there has to be a way to undo
bad decisions.

~~~
boomboomsubban
It won't happen. If we reevaluate arson cases, people will push for a wide
reevaluation of other convictions based on types of evidence that have been
shown to be flawed. This includes hair analysis, fingerprint analysis, bite
mark analysis, bullet analysis, and eyewitness accounts. Too much added work
and a truth too painful to acknowledge.

~~~
DubiousPusher
Also, the criminal Justice system is notoriously confident and resilient to
self examination. It's amazing what it can take to get even one person a new
trial.

~~~
cavanasm
I think a lot of the "confidence" is taken essentially philosophically too. A
lot of people who are willing to work on the prosecution side firmly believe
in some type of "procedural justice", the notion that a verdict reached by
properly following all legal processes, even if factually incorrect, is a just
verdict. There's a big "assuming the process is fair" part of that belief, but
those people don't go in thinking the process is unfair, and then also
contributing to the process being unfair.

------
Symmetry
Not the most horrifying abuse of forensics I've read.

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33296669-the-cadaver-
kin...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33296669-the-cadaver-king-and-the-
country-dentist)

~~~
alexhutcheson
Amazing book. It's shocking how much of the forensic "science" that the media
has conditioned us to see as infallible is actually mostly junk. Even
fingerprint analysis has less than stellar experimental track record:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#Criticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#Criticism).

------
JackFr
You know what they used to call 'junk science'?

'Science'.

Apart from the particular injustice of this and other cases, it would behoove
everyone to be a little more circumspect and humble about what we believe we
know.

~~~
rtkwe
The problem is there's a harsh disincentive for admitting that in any criminal
'science' because doing anything other than pretending the science is perfect
and infallible would undermine the criminal case.

------
cultus
Forensic science doesn't need to be good science. It just needs to impress
juries.

~~~
sjg007
The methods should at least be peer reviewed.

------
trhway
> the trial prosecutor had concealed a police report in which a key witness
> said the back-room door had been unlocked.

Never let the truth get in the way of a conviction.

~~~
nerdponx
Is this even technically illegal? Is framing someone a crime?

~~~
Symmetry
US judges have decided that judges and prosecutors have complete legal
immunity for anything they may do in pursuit of their duties.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_immunity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_immunity)

~~~
merpnderp
And this immunity was created out of nothing, backed by nothing. One of the
front runners for president in 2020 literally argued in an appeals court that
her prosecutors should have been allowed to fabricate and withhold evidence
during prosecutions. Instead of being a pariah and banished from public life,
there's a decent chance she'll bring this same mentality to the presidency.

~~~
jki275
I'm assuming you must be talking about Kamala Harris? Do you have a link?

~~~
merpnderp
"Incredibly, the State of California, via Attorney General Kamala Harris,
decided to appeal the case. The state's key argument: That putting a fake
confession in the transcript wasn't "outrageous" because it didn't involve
physical brutality, like chaining someone to a radiator and beating him with a
hose."

[https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/08/justice-
ho...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/08/justice-honesty-
government-prosecutor-column/24611623/)

This should have ended her career, as it is unforgivable. But she might be the
epitome of the downside of "good ol boy" politics.

~~~
HoppedUpMenace
You have a link that's not an opinion piece? I've searched for this court case
and anytime Kamala Harris is mentioned, the articles are blogs or very suspect
reporting websites. Also they all have identical content, looking as if each
website copy and pasted the content between themselves.

~~~
merpnderp
I googled the judge's name plus the name of the case and the first result was
the hearing transcript.

If you're a Kamala Harris fan, prepare to be traumatized.

[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2781830/people-v-
velas...](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2781830/people-v-velasco-
palacios-ca5/)

~~~
HoppedUpMenace
I'm indifferent to her in any regard but it would be interesting to see if
this gets more attention as we get closer to 2020. Seems fairly straight-
forward that she was defending the right of a prosecutor to get away with
fabricating evidence.

~~~
mrunkel
Actually no, that's not what was being argued.

They state was arguing that the defendant should still be tried on the
remaining evidence because they weren't fooled by the prosecutorial
misconduct.

In essence the defendant shouldn't be rewarded for the prosecutorial
misconduct.

While the behavior of the prosecutor was clearly abhorrent, it is reasonable
for the state to take this position.

~~~
trhway
>In essence the defendant shouldn't be rewarded for the prosecutorial
misconduct.

no, that's not what was being argued. The decision uses the established
precedent that defendant is to be "rewarded" in case of "outrageous or
conscience shocking" prosecutorial misconduct. Kamala didn't argue against
that. What, in the words of the judges listening to her, she argued is:

" On appeal, however, the People dispute that Murray’s misconduct was
outrageous or conscience shocking in a constitutional sense, as it was not
physically brutal.

...

According to the People, this language stands for the proposition that
misconduct must be “brutal” in order to shock the conscience and support a
sanction of dismissal. "

May be you think that the judges misunderstood the arguments presented by the
"People" ? :)

~~~
cannonedhamster
I agree with your position after reading the findings. Basically Kamala Harris
was, acting on behalf of the state, attempting to set a precedent for physical
violence being present before a client's case could be dismissed regardless of
other prosecutorial misconduct.

------
chris_wot
Sounds like the original investigator knows he sent an innocent man to prison.
What an absolutely horrible human being.

~~~
jacobush
I think it sounds like he believes firmly in his own instincts, and those
instincts point out mr Garret.

~~~
bilbo0s
> _... his own instincts ..._

Wow.

We're putting people in prison at 40 to 50 grand a year because, well,
"instinct".

~~~
acct1771
It's the people receiving that yearly rate that are the true criminals; still,
drinks all around.

------
ctack
State sanctioned violence in the form of imprisonment being enforced by
individuals whose egos can't accept that methods change. I find it unsettling
to say the least. But then I guess actors like agent Cooper need to hide
behind fortresses of self assurance or else they'd never be able to testify
against anyone. How else do you take life away from someone? You need the
utmost assurance in your methods.

