Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WOW. That just goes to show you - how many cases in the past were wrongful convictions.
We only thought we were solving cases in the past. And that's why the Innocence Project is so active, and is springing men who have been wrongfully imprisoned for most of their lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68
Wow, so 50 years ago the murder clearance rate was 90%? Sounds like 50 years ago police put many innocent people away. Maybe a 64% clearance rate with all the modern equipment and lab work is about the best the police could do. That 90% seems like they found a perp and could pin it on him because of circumstantial evidence.
No, we had more intelligent police 50 years ago. In the 1990s law enforcement agencies started discriminating against job applicants with high IQs. Google: "Jordan v. The City of New London". If you eliminate cops with high IQs then it should come as no surprise that police effectiveness is going to deteriorate, particularly in areas such as investigations. Put simply, cops with lower IQs are simply not going to be able to solve as many crimes. Police solving less crimes does not mean that less innocent people are going to prison. It's up to the court system to determine guilt or innocence, not the police. The police just find the suspects and bring them to the courts. But they are not doing as good a job of it as they did 50 years ago.
Last edited by Cloudy Dayz; 11-27-2022 at 07:43 AM..
It's three stabbings of people asleep in their beds (one stabbing was of a couple - wife survived though she was stabbed 19 times, so actually three stabbings and two murders,) over the course of 14 months, on the night of the 13th around 3 am, of various months. They are all unsolved. They all happened in the Pacific Northwest. 2020, 2021, and 2022.
"We're looking at every avenue, and we have other agencies reaching out to us with other cases, stuff that we are going to follow up on," Moscow Police Chief James Fry said Wednesday. He said his office knew about the case and was looking into it, but no official connection has been drawn between the two cases.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,630 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz
No, we had more intelligent police 50 years ago. In the 1990s law enforcement agencies started discriminating against job applicants with high IQs. Google: "Jordan v. The City of New London". If you eliminate cops with high IQs then it should come as no surprise that police effectiveness is going to deteriorate, particularly in areas such as investigations. Put simply, cops with lower IQs are simply not going to be able to solve as many crimes. Police solving less crimes does not mean that less innocent people are going to prison. It's up to the court system to determine guilt or innocence. The police just find the suspects and bring them to the courts. But they are not doing as good a job of it as they did 50 years ago.
Cloudy. We have DNA, cell phones, video cameras everywhere, and we are able to solve about 65% of the crimes.
In the past, before those tools, we had a 90% conviction rate.
That means many people were convicted on the belief by LE and the Prosecutors that they were guilty, not on actual evidence.
It means police are doing a BETTER job than they were before, and having to rule out people who would have been convicted in the past.
No, we had more intelligent police 50 years ago. In the 1990s law enforcement agencies started discriminating against job applicants with high IQs. Google: "Jordan v. The City of New London". If you eliminate cops with high IQs then it should come as no surprise that police effectiveness is going to deteriorate, particularly in areas such as investigations. Put simply, cops with lower IQs are simply not going to be able to solve as many crimes. Police solving less crimes does not mean that less innocent people are going to prison. It's up to the court system to determine guilt or innocence, not the police. The police just find the suspects and bring them to the courts. But they are not doing as good a job of it as they did 50 years ago.
Well, you’ve got to admit that evidence 50 years ago was largely circumstantial. They may have been right most of the time but one could easily see how a jury would be more likely to convict on circumstantial evidence and motive then as opposed to now when they expect the mountain of evidence standard based on crime shows. And just imagine how many people with motives are eliminated as suspects today because there is so much digital data available now. That wouldn’t have been possible 50 years ago so in the clinker they’d go.
Cloudy. We have DNA, cell phones, video cameras everywhere, and we are able to solve about 65% of the crimes.
In the past, before those tools, we had a 90% conviction rate.
That means many people were convicted on the belief by LE and the Prosecutors that they were guilty, not on actual evidence.
It means police are doing a BETTER job than they were before, and having to rule out people who would have been convicted in the past.
DNA and video cameras everywhere is a relatively recent thing, mostly the last 10 years. The clearance rate for homicide dropped well before that. Technology should be increasing convictions not decreasing them.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,630 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz
DNA and video cameras everywhere is a relatively recent thing, mostly the last 10 years. The clearance rate for homicide dropped well before that. Technology should be increasing convictions not decreasing them.
Depends on your perspective. Technology should certainly be decreasing wrongful convictions.
Well, you’ve got to admit that evidence 50 years ago was largely circumstantial. They may have been right most of the time but one could easily see how a jury would be more likely to convict on circumstantial evidence and motive then as opposed to now when they expect the mountain of evidence standard based on crime shows. And just imagine how many people with motives are eliminated as suspects today because there is so much digital data available now. That wouldn’t have been possible 50 years ago so in the clinker they’d go.
Just imagine how many people are convicted today because of digital data. 50 years ago someone could rob a bank, and unless they were dumb enough to leave their fingerprints behind, the only evidence to identify them was witness identifications. Today high definition pictures of their faces will be on the nightly news, and police will just wait for someone to recognize them and call Crime Stoppers. The police don't even investigate any more. They just wait for the public to do their work for them. Well that doesn't work with a case like this, because there isn't much if any digital data of the crime.
Maybe the killer went upstairs and killed the two girls and Ethan heard something and went to investigate and ran into the killer, who he probably knew. The killer at that point would have no choice in his mind but to kill Ethan there and go into the bedroom and kill Xana. One or both of the girls upstairs were most likely the target.
AGREE. As I've said in previous posts, the killer was someone who knew one or both of these two girls and had some jealousy/grudge/revenge motive in mind.
Maybe the killer went upstairs and killed the two girls and Ethan heard something and went to investigate and ran into the killer, who he probably knew. The killer at that point would have no choice in his mind but to kill Ethan there and go into the bedroom and kill Xana. One or both of the girls upstairs were most likely the target.
That is not a bad theory, but how do you come to the conclusion that he probably knew the killer? The results would have been different if he didn't know the killer?
LE doesn't really know jack
The killer(s) aren't hanging around
Take down...they do know that though
Speculate until the moo-moos come home
Payback
Last edited by RidgeCrossing; 11-27-2022 at 09:00 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
