Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: A study in contrasts Previous entry: Is this what Bush meant by the ownership society?

Clever Hans The Crime-Fighting Horse Is Getting Nervous

While I’m a big proponent of the idea—-which I intend to hit on more in my next book that I’m writing now—-that skepticism and liberalism should be strong allies, rarely do I get an opportunity to point out how woo can feed directly human rights violations.  But via LGM, here’s a story about how the woo-based belief that animals have supernatural abilities led to a series of unjust convictions, most of which may still be standing. 

A wonder dog helped convict all three men: a German shepherd named Harass II, who wowed juries with his amazing ability to place suspects at the scenes of crimes.

Harass could supposedly do things no other dog could: tracking scents months later and even across water, according to his handler, John Preston.

If it sounds hard to believe, there’s a good reason.

At least three men who’ve been convicted because of Harass and his owner’s testimony have been set free after it was discovered that Preston’s claims about his dog’s superpowers were full of shit.  To be entirely fair, I doubt that Preston, like many people who feel their animals can do things those animals can’t do, may have been unconsciously signaling the dog to give him affirmations of what Preston secretly believed was true.  Dogs may not be able to smell over water or smell someone’s presence 6 months after the fact, but they can read their owners really well and produce behavior that will result in rewards off very subtle cues.  It’s the Clever Hans problem.  The judge who finally forced the issue and had the dog’s tracking abilities independently tested said that Preston’s services came into play when the state didn’t have a case, but felt like they had to have that conviction.  This doesn’t mean Preston was deliberately faking the results, but it’s possible he inherited the prosecution’s preconceived notions and sent unconscious signals to his dog.  I’d in fact argue this is likelier than pure malice.

So far, the three cases—-a murder, a rape, and a rape/murder—-had no real evidence outside of the dog’s confirmations, and in the rape case, the man convicted didn’t even fit the victim’s description.  The problem now is that two cases were only overturned because the prisoners had legal counsel who demanded DNA testing to set them free.  The state of Florida has shown zero interest in going back and looking at all the cases where the dog was used as evidence, even though they have a strong record of using this dog in lieu of real evidence.  Who knows how many innocent people this dog has been used to finger?

I personally was shocked, though I shouldn’t have been, that a dog can be used as an expert witness to a crime like this.  Already dogs are way overused to overcome the limits put on human law enforcement’s ability to invade your privacy, but obviously there should be some situations where hounds sensing something can be used to create enough evidence to conduct a search.  Well-trained bomb-sniffing dogs come to mind, as does using dogs to track people who are trying to escape justice.  But I fail to see any excuse for using a dog as a witness in court, especially since you need a trainer to interpret the signals who could be sending the dog unintentional positive reinforcement.  This is basic animal psychology, not something that’s hard to find out.  In cases where a dog smells something, that should only, at the most, be evidence for a warrant, and if you don’t turn anything up, too bad for you that your dog was wrong.  Or, more likely, you were. 

What this case also tells me is that people who’re interested in skepticism need to think more about where the criminal justice system could be using woo to convict innocent people, and how we can help stop that from happening by demanding that evidence be vetted through scientific research and understanding as much as possible.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 07:11 PM • (75) Comments

You know, I love my dog (& my cats), but this is fucked up. It’s like some bad Disney movie from the 70’s w/Kurt Russell & the dog has to convince the Dean not to expel him and his dune buggy riding friends.

Comment #1: Mark  on  06/16  at  07:15 PM

You were shocked Amanda?  You’ve obviously never been to Florida.  Then again, living in Texas, “local justice” is not a practice completely unknown to you.

And yes, it’s heinous.  And it’s done all the time.  Everywhere.  It’s just in many parts of the south, they’re less subtle about it.

Consider all the people who’ve been forced into plea agreements because they were convinced that five or ten years was better than twenty or more with no option that they may not even be guilty.

Comment #2: ice weasel  on  06/16  at  07:25 PM

You shouldn’t be surprised that the state isn’t going back to look at other cases.  Prosecutors and judges (at least US ones) have a remarkable ability to justify their conclusions even when objectively proven wrong.

For instance, I’ve seen at least one case where DNA proved a man convicted of rape was not the one who left DNA on the victim or at that location.  So what does the prosecutor say in an interview discussing it?  Oh, that they did convict the right guy: see, he had a partner who actually did the deed while the (innocent) man was an accessory and held the victim down or lured her in or captured her or something.

Now, mind you, the victim never brought up a second rapist, there was no discussion of a second rapist during the investigation or the trial, and the cops had never actually looked for this second rapist but hey, it’s not possible we got the wrong guy.  He confessed and everything, and we’ve never heard of something so silly as a false confession (which, incidentally, also didn’t mention a second rapist)...

Comment #3: KeithM  on  06/16  at  07:32 PM

Yeah, if I had a pile of money, I’m starting to think one of the first places I’d spend it would be on endowing a few local public defenders’ offices.

Comment #4: Punditus Maximus  on  06/16  at  07:41 PM

Harass II?

Usually in that cheesy kind of fiction (yes, I too envision a live-action Disney movie gone wrong (no sic)) the dog is named “Justice”.

Comment #5: ThresherK  on  06/16  at  07:52 PM

I myself REMAIN shocked at the extent to which justice systems are NOT happy to do DNA testing to GET INNOCENT PEOPLE OUT OF JAIL.

THey just plain don’t CARE if there are innocent people rotting in jail, even though letting them go would (presumably) lessen costs.

It just boggles my mind.

Comment #6: KMTBERRY  on  06/16  at  08:04 PM

Same thing as is going on with the Guantanamo inmates; they’re in prison, therefore they deserve to be in prison, regardless of how they got there.

Comment #7: Tim P.  on  06/16  at  08:10 PM

Where the criminal justice system could be using woo to convict innocent people?

EYE WITNESSES identifying a subject.

There is considerable evidence that eye witnesses are not particularly good at identifying criminals. Crimes tend to be emotional events, which can screw with memory and then project blame onto innocent people later on—especially picturing those people in a situation suggestive of criminality, like in a line-up or behind a defense table.

And there is empirical evidence that undermines the OVERWHELMING role that this kind of evidence plays with juries. Sure, you don’t want to throw this out entirely, but it needs to be handled with a lot more skepticism.

But, “I know what I saw,” it truthy and hits folks in the guts.

This is also a big part of why all those death penalty cases get thrown out with DNA evidence. Eye witnesses often lead to over-prosecution of a case, even compared to other cases with stronger physical (more reliable) evidence.

Comment #8: humanadverb  on  06/16  at  08:18 PM

THey just plain don’t CARE if there are innocent people rotting in jail, even though letting them go would (presumably) lessen costs.

It just boggles my mind.

Henry Lee Lucas.  Remember him?  “Most prolific killer in history”.

Know how many murders we’re actually pretty sure he committed, that there’s actual evidence and confirmation for?

Two.  The two that he was arrested for.  His girlfriend, who was about to leave him, and an old woman he worked for (and that he was stealing from).  Pretty standard stuff, greed and jealousy.  So why do people know the name Henry Lee Lucas?

Do you know how many murders and alleged murders he confessed to?  Over two thousand.

He was confessing to everything, much of it for his own amusement as cops came to talk to him concerning just about every open case file they had.  And he’d let them close the case.  It was eventually proven so bad that he received a commutation from a death sentence because there was a lot of doubt concerning if he ever killed anyone at all (as said, we’re pretty sure about two, but not the other 4 he was convicted of and certainly not all the ones associated with him).  The governor of Texas at the time: George W. Bush.  That’s how screwed up the whole thing was.  His defense attorney at that time?  The former prosecutor who got him on the initial two murders, who was so disturbed about what was going on that he felt that it wasn’t justice to kill Lucas for murders he didn’t commit, even if (if you believe in capital punishment) he deserved to die for the ones he had done.

Even when there were serious doubts about Lucas, when everyone knew there were investigations going on and serious questions being raised about what he was saying, cops still kept going to him.  Had a ten year old rape-murder case?  Lucas was your guy.  Someone killed during a home robbery?  Henry Lee would make that open file go away.

And everyone sleeps better at night because they know that whoever killed that co-ed a while back is a strange man in Texas on death row…and not some unknown person who might still be out there.

So you wonder why there’s not a lot of effort to look at old cases and make sure that the right person is doing the time?

Comment #9: KeithM  on  06/16  at  09:03 PM

“THey just plain don’t CARE if there are innocent people rotting in jail, even though letting them go would (presumably) lessen costs.”

<cheney-style-guilt-by-proximity>
Well, they must have been guilty, otherwise why did they get arrested?  And they were put in to jail, had a trial, and went to prison, so of course they’re guilty!  You panty-waisted, bleeding-heart liberals are all alike — nobody is ever guilty in your world of “feelings” and “empathy”.  Stand back and let us bring justice to America…
</cheney-style-guilt-by-proximity>

Just more of the same old, with a doggy twist…

Comment #10: MikeEss  on  06/16  at  09:08 PM

Excellent post. Accepting specious claims as true without skeptical inquiry absolutely has tangible consequences, including failures of justice. Another example from Florida: http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=79533

Comment #11: Triplanetary  on  06/16  at  09:13 PM

Shit. Are you telling me that the results of my tax-cheat dowsing rod are no longer admissible in FL?

Comment #12: Yig  on  06/16  at  09:19 PM

This is actually an excellent corollary argument as to why its bad to have only former prosecutors nominated for judicial openings.  The Supreme Court is only the tip of the iceberg.

Comment #13: idiosynchronic  on  06/16  at  09:20 PM

I don’t know if you heard about the wonder cadaver dog and trainer- the trainer was planting all the evidence.  Just terrible.

Comment #14: Pinko Punko  on  06/16  at  09:23 PM

Some prosecutors are not complete assholes about this kind of thing, but way too many are. (I once interviewed a DA who was sure his perp—for a nonviolent charge—had gotten off on a technicality when the ostensible victim, after looking at the seized evidence, said “oops, we’re sorry, all that stuff actually does belong to him.’)

I think a big problem is that woo is an accepted part of police investigations—psychics, lie detectors, lies about what other witnesses or suspects have said—so that it inevitable becomes part of the prosecution as well.

Comment #15: paul  on  06/16  at  09:29 PM

As someone who has previously trained dogs for police work and the like, this is really bad.  A good dog handler team would never allow their testimony to be used like this in court… We go to what trouble we can (as allowed by the questions) to make it clear what the dogs’ limitations are and what can be reasonably concluded from the dogs’ work.

However, dogs’ testimony in court goes back a long way: a bloodhound’s “word” in court has been good for as long as the breed has been around.

I attribute this mostly to the “death of science” in the court room—you can find “expert witnesses” that will testify to *anything* and the jury is forced to take it under serious consideration (even if it contradicts something you might personally know otherwise, etc.)  We seriously need to rework how science is generally handled in the courtroom as it’s a serious problem overall.

Comment #16: anon  on  06/16  at  09:40 PM

Hm.  The “this” in “I attribute this” should be understood to refer to the outrageous claims Harass’ handler was able to make in court testimony.

Comment #17: anon  on  06/16  at  09:42 PM

I personally was shocked, though I shouldn’t have been, that a dog can be used as an expert witness to a crime like this.

WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! I am completely gobsmacked by this shit. You may as well convict people with a motherfucking OUIJA fucking board!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment #18: PhysioProf  on  06/16  at  09:56 PM

I’m a big dog lover, but what the fuck?

Comment #19: Ben D.  on  06/16  at  10:00 PM

Unfortunately, much of forensic “science” is woo or borderline woo. This is certainly true of the polygraph. Even fingerprint analysis has never been subjected to rigorous scientific testing in practice.

Comment #20: tesseral  on  06/16  at  10:05 PM

Strange- I was taught that in most states, any witnesses had to give an oath verifying their testimony to be truthful on penalty of perjury or something similar.

Damned if I know how a dog did that.

Comment #21: Lurker 2.0  on  06/16  at  10:09 PM

If we want to get better scrutiny of expert witness testimony, we need to actually teach the public about science and scientific methods so they can identify whether or not someone has a good basis for making a conclusion. While you can’t ever learn all of the science that every expert uses, you can learn how to tell if the way he or she arrived at those conclusions is based in something with solid evidence or something that is merely corroborated by anecdote.

Also, I have very little faith in confessions. (and here I delve into anecdote myself, so yeah, uncorroborated and so forth) I know a ton of really anxious people who tell me that when they are accused of doing something wrong, part of them starts to wonder if it might actually be true. This happens because they are already so disconnected from reality and so lacking in faith in their own point of view that they are easily taken over by someone else. Find someone with a tendency to do that, put him or her in a highly stressful situation like an interrogation, and if you are savvy and know when your target is losing hold on reality you just give an extra push and provide a sprinkling of helpful details. Sleep deprivation helps a lot with this too.

It seriously scares me how easy it is for an innocent person to wind up behind bars.

Comment #22: Dymphna  on  06/16  at  10:18 PM

Odd, I remember Clever Hans from kid’s books.  Never thought I’d hear him mentioned again. 

Animals are smart, but not in the way these dorks seem to think they are.  The ability of domestic animals and dogs in particular to learn, understand, and empathize with human emotions is really extraordinary; to the point where they make fools out of the justice system. (Of course that may not be that difficult.)

Comment #23: hypatia  on  06/16  at  10:41 PM

<cheney-style-guilt-by-proximity>
Well, they must have been guilty, otherwise why did they get arrested?  ...
</cheney-style-guilt-by-proximity>

Just more of the same old, with a doggy twist…
MikeEss on 06/16 at 04:08 PM

Guess it shows my age that I’d block that <Meese-style-guilt-by-proximity>...

And on it goes, back through Nixon and on through the Eisenhower years (via Roy Cohn, who was dying around the time Edwin Meese said that, and on back to before they had pesky Miranda rights and the like to deal with at all.

Time was, I used to believe in the American system of justice…but I was just naive.

Oh, and lookit—I didn’t know Meese was actually born in Oakland until I found the Wiki reference. But I did know he had had a career as a prosecutor in Alameda County.

Which if you know your California political geography is and has long been ground-zero of California leftism, what with UC Berkeley being there and all.

Just something to remember when we are tempted to run down “Red States” and other allegedly backwards cesspools of darkness. There’s shadows everywhere.

And light everywhere—this is why I like liberals and people to the left of them who happen to be from, or even still reside in, more stereotypically reactionary places. Our Anti-Meeses.

Our Cat Ballous against the Cheneys, if you will…

OK now I’m just rambling. G’Night!

Comment #24: Mark Foxwell  on  06/16  at  10:42 PM

This type of shit police work/prosecutions is why the death penalty is currently suspended in Illinois and why a former police chief is going to jail and there are multimillion dollar suits in the works.

At least no one is dying right now for crimes they didn’t commit.

Comment #25: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  06/16  at  10:47 PM

He’s trying to tell us something.  WHAT IS IT BOY? TIMMY RAPED AND MURDERED MRS. ANDERSON!

Comment #26: pablo  on  06/16  at  11:10 PM

I’m surprised nobody brought up comparative bullet lead analysis yet.

I agree with Dymphna that there isn’t enough education about the scientific method out there, juries really aren’t equipped to look at experts and scientific analysis with any real critical eye.

Comment #27: Godless Heathen  on  06/16  at  11:13 PM

This all reminded me of something, but I couldn’t think what. And then it hit me—an old Woody Allen play:


ASSISTANT: Mr. Spiro the clairvoyant is on the verge of revealing the killer. Please clear the way. (SPIRO, working his way sniffing) Mr. Spiro wishes to sniff you.

KLEINMAN: Me?

ASSISTANT: Yes.

KLEINMAN: What for?

ASSISTANT: It’s enough he wishes it.

KLEINMAN: I don’t want to be sniffed.

FRANK: What have you got to hide?
(OTHERS ad-lib agreement)

KLEINMAN: Nothing, but it makes me nervous.

POLICEMAN: Go ahead. Sniff away.
(SPIRO sniffs. KLEINMAN is uncomfortable)

KLEINMAN: What is he doing? I got nothing to hide. My jacket probably smells a little from camphor. Right? Hey, can you stop sniffing me now? It makes me nervous.

AL: Nervous, Kleinman?

KLEINMAN: I never liked getting sniffed. (SPIRO increases his intensity) What’s the matter? What are you all looking at?

SPIRO: This man is a murderer.

KLEINMAN: What?

POLICEMAN: Kleinman?

SPIRO: Yes, Kleinman.

ASSISTANT: Mr. Spiro has done it again!

KLEINMAN: What are you talking about? Do you know what you’re talking about?

SPIRO: Here is the guilty party.

KLEINMAN: You’re crazy. Spiro…this guy’s a lunatic!

HENRY: So, Kleinman, it’s been you all along.

FRANK (yelling) Hey—-here! Here! We’ve trapped him!

KLEINMAN: What are you doing?!

SPIRO: There is no doubt. It’s conclusive.

Comment #28: Bitter Scribe  on  06/16  at  11:27 PM

This is tragic and a pretty depressing commentary on human nature—both the close-minded prosecutors, the self-deceiving (one would hope) dog handler, and the gullible juries. But did anyone else think of Sgt. Preston of the Yukon and his wonder dog?

Comment #29: weirdnoise  on  06/16  at  11:46 PM

While I cruise the Internet, my three-year-old is watching a show called “Martha Speaks.” It’s about a talking dog. The dog used to be a normal dog, then she ate some alphabet soup. A mad scientist type, standing in front of an image of the dog’s internal organs, explains that instead of the letters going to the dog’s stomach, they went to her brain, and she learned how to talk.

That seems to be the level of science we’re talking about there.

But forensics has been full of woo and flat-out lying for a long time. In one of the famous death penalty reversals in Illinois, it turned out that an “expert” footprint analyst - completely setting aside the flimsiness of correctly analyzed footprint analysis - had told the jury that a footprint outside the victim’s house was a size 7, matching the suspect’s size 7 shoe. He neglected to mention that the footprint was a woman’s size 7, while the defendant wore a man’s size 7.

Agreed that the terrible quality of science education is partially to blame. Juries can be convinced that DNA evidence is unreliable but a magic dog is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Comment #30: chingona  on  06/16  at  11:57 PM

Dogs (and pigs) can detect all sorts of differences in smells that humans miss. They are search tools, nothing more. Once the dog has located a cadaver, explosive, pot residue, whatever, then the human has to confirm its existence by more quantifiable methods (chemical or DNA analysis). As for training dogs with rotting parts, some enterprising individual invented “corpse in a can” scent - anti-perfume! - to avoid having to let slaughterhouse bits age in your backyard to get the training tools.

I am also convinced that dogs and a few other animals are more weather-sensitive than humans. We humans seem not to pick up on changes in barometric pressure.

Comment #31: NancyP  on  06/17  at  12:01 AM

I agree that we need to give people more information about the scientific method. Right now most people don’t even have enough information to really *be* skeptical. It’s interesting how people can totally buy into woo and religion and everything else, and are only skeptical of skepticism.

If someone had suggested that this dog didn’t have these amazing abilities before the truth came out, people wouldn’t just think you were wrong—they’d think you were mean. People would seriously think you had a big black hole in your heart, and that there was something wrong with you that you couldn’t see just how amazing and smart this dog was. And when the truth finally came out, they would think you were mean as well as arrogant. Woo is an emotional thing for people, and when you question it, they always take it personally. And no matter how high the stakes are, people will always think there is something wrong with you because you didn’t believe.

Comment #32: Jenny Dreadful  on  06/17  at  12:06 AM

Animals are smart, but not in the way these dorks seem to think they are.

Gavin de Becker points this fallacy out in The Gift Of Fear: people think their dogs are reacting to a person or situation because the dog perceives more than they, the humans, do; but actually it’s because the dog perceives more or less exactly what their human does. Your dog isn’t growling at the contractor because the contractor’s a shady character who cheats, your dog’s growling at the contractor because the dog knows that something the contractor’s said or done has made you uncomfortable.

Maybe the reason people don’t like to face this explanation is the other side of the “it’s all about you” coin: sometimes, people don’t like to consider that it might be about them, that they might be uncomfortable with a situation or have a bias towards a certain outcome. They prefer to be able to put that on someone or something else, like the dog.

Comment #33: kristin  on  06/17  at  12:06 AM

He’s trying to tell us something.  WHAT IS IT BOY? TIMMY RAPED AND MURDERED MRS. ANDERSON!
pablo on 06/16 at 10:10 PM

And it’s pablo FTW!!

Comment #34: hbsweet, empress of ice cream  on  06/17  at  12:48 AM

chingona, the equivalence to the men’s and women’s shoe size thing happen all the time in dna evidence.  It’s why you never really want to use it as an identifier, but it’s much easier to prove someone wasn’t the culprit in terms of labratory and statistical expertise.

Comment #35: shah8  on  06/17  at  01:12 AM

Ah, one other thing to add to this topic…

Justice is never about right and wrong.  We’ve had people advocate sane responses to the criminal justice issues since about the Rennaissance, at least.  Sane and humane people were never really listened to until the rise of a real middle class in western nations.  Even so, there are so many people out there in the world that are thoroughly about the opportunity to hurt others under the guise of righteousness.  Like assassinations of babykillers.

Comment #36: shah8  on  06/17  at  01:17 AM

the equivalence to the men’s and women’s shoe size thing happen all the time in dna evidence

Can you explain what you mean here? And are you talking about misuse of evidence the prosecution knows is unclear or are you saying that DNA from the semen of a rapist cannot actually be used to match a suspect to a crime?

Comment #37: chingona  on  06/17  at  01:36 AM

Even fingerprint analysis has never been subjected to rigorous scientific testing in practice.

Well, at least in the case of fingerprints there’s a pretty large body of evidence to indicate that it’s valid.  There’s never been a case ever discovered of identical prints.

On the other hand the identification issue is relevant: what exactly is the baseline to constitute a match has never been universally accepted.

Comment #38: KeithM  on  06/17  at  01:40 AM

Can you explain what you mean here? And are you talking about misuse of evidence the prosecution knows is unclear or are you saying that DNA from the semen of a rapist cannot actually be used to match a suspect to a crime?

I suspect the implication is because DNA can’t absolutely identify a subject, as there is always a chance someone else out there has a match, but can be absolutely certain for use in identifying who did NOT supply the sample.  Since they don’t test the entire sequence, but only a given number of sites that are known to be highly variable in the human population, you can never bee 100% certain that only one individual has that particular pattern.  That frequently gets overlooked

On the other hand, if the odds are several billion to 1 that there’s someone else out there with a match, well, then you pretty much have to apply Occam’s Razor.  What’s more reasonable, that out of a theoretical population of the entire planet, the one person who has the exact same pattern as the suspect happened to commit the crime…or the several billion-1 out of several billion odds that it really was the suspect?

Comment #39: KeithM  on  06/17  at  01:52 AM

On the other hand, if the odds are several billion to 1 that there’s someone else out there with a match, well, then you pretty much have to apply Occam’s Razor.

Okay. I knew that they always expressed it like that and that it was not an absolute identifier, but that seems like a much better likelihood of getting your man than claiming a men’s and a women’s size 7 shoe are the same, when you know damn well they’re not. Which is why I wondered about shah8’s point.

Comment #40: chingona  on  06/17  at  01:57 AM

I am also convinced that dogs and a few other animals are more weather-sensitive than humans. We humans seem not to pick up on changes in barometric pressure.
NancyP

Talk to a few people with fibromyalgia or broken bones and you’ll find out that many people do pick up changes in barometric pressure. Usually in the form of “damn, it hurts”.

Comment #41: Samantha Vimes  on  06/17  at  01:57 AM

“Gavin de Becker points this fallacy out in The Gift Of Fear: people think their dogs are reacting to a person or situation because the dog perceives more than they, the humans, do; but actually it’s because the dog perceives more or less exactly what their human does. Your dog isn’t growling at the contractor because the contractor’s a shady character who cheats, your dog’s growling at the contractor because the dog knows that something the contractor’s said or done has made you uncomfortable.”

Sorry Kristin,  but both you and Becker are missing that dogs, and other animals with acute olfactory sense, do pick up on things like adrenalin -  which can be associated with someone lying.  However, that probably doesn’t apply to the case Amanda has cited.

Comment #42: phylosopher  on  06/17  at  02:12 AM

Yes, but adrenalin is produced under a lot more circumstances than someone lying, and I think the most likely explanation is that when the guy next door skeeves me out, *I* get anxious and produce adrenalin, which the dog picks up on.

Is there any evidence at all that dogs can tell when someone is lying (by adrenalin or any other means)? There’s definitely evidence that they pick up on the emotional state of their handler.

Comment #43: kristin  on  06/17  at  02:20 AM

I get adrenaline rushes every time I’m around a dog, despite not consciously being afraid of dogs since I was 12. Especially German Shepherds.

Comment #44: Auguste  on  06/17  at  03:14 AM

I meant not that a false positive is rare when the tests are done right.  Even then, it’s not actually billions to one.  What I mean is that when you want to accept dna evidence as positive identifying, then you really, really gotta check the chain of custody of the samples and procedures used to test them with (how good is the lab doing the work?).  DNA testing is pretty susceptible to the whole see what you want errors.  Reporting the results also often suffer from statistical interpretation errors.

Here’s a web page:
http://www.fathom.com/course/21701758/session1.html

Go to session 5 if you don’t want to read all of it.

Here’s another website that explains from a slightly different angle:

http://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2008/07/dna-evidence-accuracy.html


The key here is:  Prosecutors LOVE the simple tell.  It’s easy to tell a bunch of idiots in the box all about the simple story with the lock-on gotcha.  Everything from woo stuff to purposely/unpurposely mishandling creditable evidence.  There is now a situation that authoritarians are loving to abuse dna as much as they would more woo science stuff like facial recognition, racial profiling, and polygraphs, and with nobody able or willing to stop them.  The building of genetic databases of criminals (and eventually everyone) is going to be a net negative without much stronger privacy controls than the current judicial climate is inclined to give.

Comment #45: shah8  on  06/17  at  03:33 AM

Well, at least in the case of fingerprints there’s a pretty large body of evidence to indicate that it’s valid.  There’s never been a case ever discovered of identical prints.

Not so fast there…

Comment #46: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  06/17  at  05:18 AM

Oh my, florida really sucks.

Comment #47: atalised  on  06/17  at  05:38 AM

Just so you know, dogs can track people across water. Walking through water stirs up sediments. Dogs smell the odors released from this and can track you across a stream or creek.

Comment #48: Ozzymandias  on  06/17  at  06:29 AM

Someone once remarked that it is not enough that justice be done, justice must be seen to be done. Then some smartarse realised that as long as justice is seen to be done, it doesn’t actually matter whether it really is done or not, and it sure is cheaper to cut all those awkward corners.

Comment #49: Dunc  on  06/17  at  07:06 AM

“I myself REMAIN shocked at the extent to which justice systems are NOT happy to do DNA testing to GET INNOCENT PEOPLE OUT OF JAIL.”

I’m still pretty shocked by the extent to which the justice system isn’t doing DNA tests right out of the gate with investigations.  I mean, if you have DNA evidence, it seems way more likely to be useful to you in determining which of your suspects is your perpetrator than grainy security camera footage or shaky eye-witness testimony or any of the other more commonly used techniques.  And, of course, if you don’t have a suspect at all, you can run a DNA sample through a database to see if that gives you any leads.

Comment #50: preying mantis  on  06/17  at  08:37 AM

Wait, I’m confused. When did the judge order the testing of this dog? Because I get the sense that it was very recently, and yet at least one of the dog-related convictions was in 1981, and no dog lives that long.

Comment #51: RickMassimo  on  06/17  at  09:14 AM

Goshorn exposed Preston and Harass back in 1984, and from what I can tell they haven’t been used since. 

I suspect you’re right and the dog isn’t still alive, however some of the people he helped to convict are probably still in prison (or living with a felony record).

Comment #52: WoofWoof  on  06/17  at  10:10 AM

“If we want to get better scrutiny of expert witness testimony, we need to actually teach the public about science and scientific methods so they can identify whether or not someone has a good basis for making a conclusion.”

During voir dire, the last time I had jury duty, the attorneys for the plaintiff tossed out every juror with a college education or a middle-management or higher position at their job.  I don’t remember what the case was about (I was tossed from the jury pool almost immediately), but I suspect that the plaintiff’s attorney(s) felt the case would only be convincing to people who might not have the level of education needed to understand it.  It was a civil case, but I imagine that prosecutors do the same thing with criminal cases with shaky underpinnings.

So yes, a broader and deeper public understanding of science would be a step toward a better justice system, but only if those educated jurors are allowed to sit on juries!

Comment #53: Doodlespook  on  06/17  at  10:14 AM

“Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”

[With paw on Bible] “Woof.”

No, dogs can’t be witnesses.

Comment #54: rea  on  06/17  at  10:19 AM

Goshorn exposed Preston and Harass back in 1984, and from what I can tell they haven’t been used since.

I suspect you’re right and the dog isn’t still alive, however some of the people he helped to convict are probably still in prison (or living with a felony record).

OK, but I’m still trying to figure out why we’re just hearing about this now. Unless people convicted by this dog are just getting out of jail now. In which case I wonder why every conviction that this dog had ANYTHING to do with wasn’t overturned immediately. And in so wondering, I make a mental note never to move to Florida.

Comment #55: RickMassimo  on  06/17  at  10:23 AM

I’m no longer shocked about prosecutors being assholes. But I do what emphasize that this is why it’s dangerous to “entertain” woo. Privileged people think all sorts of bullshit about their animals because they love them, and rather than responding “that’s great but they’re not magic,” friends nod and go along.

Comment #56: onegin  on  06/17  at  10:37 AM

During voir dire, the last time I had jury duty, the attorneys for the plaintiff tossed out every juror with a college education or a middle-management or higher position at their job.

Every time I hear something like this, it just weirds me out… Over here in the UK (well, Scotland anyway) nobody gets any say on who ends up on the jury. If your number comes up, you’re on, unless you’ve got a very good reason to get out of it (for example, you know one of the defendants). Neither the prosecution nor the defence get any say in the matter so far as I know, although there may be means for the defence to object to a juror they have specific reasons to believe cannot judge the trial impartially.

Was there ever a good reason for voir dire in jury selection, as currently practiced?

Comment #57: Dunc  on  06/17  at  10:40 AM

One of the people the dog helped to convict, Bill Dillon, got released just last year after 27 years in prison when the state finally did DNA testing.  The state of Florida recently screwed him out of the standard settlement (worth over $1 million after 27 years) based on a technicality, and in recounting the story it seems one of the local columnists stumbled across the Wonder Dog story.

And yeah, the standard “this stuff happens everywhere” line and everything, but Florida does seem to have a history of being much nuttier than most in the criminal justice arena.  I’m not sure why that is, really.  In many ways Florida is sort of a moderate state politically and socially, but when it comes to the courts, they seem to fall squarely in the Alabama-Mississippi territory.

Comment #58: WoofWoof  on  06/17  at  10:41 AM

There are two big problems with fingerprints, afaik:
1) the quality of the actual prints you get from a crime scene sucks (tiny partial smudges, not those nice things you see on CSI) so you’re working with noisy data to start with.
2) the algorithms for comparing prints don’t actually compare prints, they compare the points where the whorls branch or break or do hairpins or other things that are easy for a dumbass image-processing program to recognize. You can have two very different fingerprints whose compressed versions in the database (150-200 bytes was the old standard) are very similar.

That’s why all the computer-generated matches are supposed to be verified by a technician. Sure they are.

DNA “identification”, meanwhile, relies on assumptions about the distribution of alleles in the population of interest that simply aren’t true. What’s telling about this is that there have been stories detailing the attempts by the FBI and other law-enforcement organizations to block access by researchers trying to find out just how many records match at most or all of their alleles.

Comment #59: paul  on  06/17  at  11:21 AM

“In many ways Florida is sort of a moderate state politically and socially[...]”

Only when you homogenize it.  There’s a pretty strong cultural difference between the touristy-colonized sections of the state and the more agricultural-historic sections of the state.  Unsurprisingly, the areas with significantly fewer transplants are significantly closer to neighboring deep-south states like Georgia and Alabama in culture.  The areas where half the population used to be from the northeast are, also unsurprisingly, a lot closer to the northeast in culture.  Combine that with the allure that certain parts of Florida life hold, or used to hold, for the country as a whole, and you’re pretty much guaranteed to run into weirdness.  I imagine you see similar collisions causing similar oddities in other destination-states/cities like California and NYC.

Comment #60: preying mantis  on  06/17  at  11:27 AM

That’s why all the computer-generated matches are supposed to be verified by a technician. Sure they are.

They have to be.  Unlike what you see on TV shows and movies, the real programs like IAFIS don’t show a single match, they show a range of the closest matches the computer recognizes.  A human still has to pick one out of the lineup, so to speak.

The human might be a dumbass and not do their jobs, but that’s not the computer’s fault.

Comment #61: KeithM  on  06/17  at  12:03 PM

“Your dog isn’t growling at the contractor because the contractor’s a shady character who cheats, your dog’s growling at the contractor because the dog knows that something the contractor’s said or done has made you uncomfortable.”

Which would be why my dog “hates” my partner’s boss. lol I can definitely see how that can be convenient for many people though. They can rationalize to themselves that it’s not just them, the dog thinks the same way so it MUST be true.

Dogs can definitely pick up adrenaline and if your dog is particularly dominant (or you’ve trained it to do so) it may act more aggressively to a stranger who is producing a lot of it.  However we generally try to train that behaviour out of dogs, the last thing most people want is a dominant dog that will try to intimidate and/or harm random people on the street who are afraid of it.

The problem with adrenaline and lying is that it is still a fear response; fear that you will get caught in the lie.  So a scummy contractor who is trying to scam you a couple hundred probably is not going to produce all that much adrenaline, if any at all.  The individual who is hooked up to the lie detector with a murder conviction over their head is going to be a little more agitated.  Which is exactly why lie detectors can’t be used as evidence because they rely on the fact that the suspect will be scared and produce adrenaline, therefore raising the pulse and producing sweat.  All you need is a really nervous individual or a very confident one and the results will be shot.  And since they are both looking for adrenaline I can’t see how a dog would be any more effective than a lie detector.

Comment #62: hypatia  on  06/17  at  01:57 PM

ha pointed it out at the top of the thread:  Eyewitness testimony as it’s currently collected is often wrong:

There have been 233 people exonerated by DNA in this country, and now a stunning pattern has emerged: more than three quarters of them were sent to prison at least in part because an eyewitness pointed a finger - an eyewitness we now know was wrong.

This is extremely relevant to a current miscarriage of justice:  Troy Davis.

According to NAACP President Benjamin T. Jealous on Real Time last week, the State of Georgia insists that because the appeal is based on the recanting of eyewitness testimony, rather than the introduction of DNA evidence, they are not required to reopen the case, and hence refuse to do so.

Comment #63: NY Expat  on  06/17  at  02:34 PM

“Just so you know, dogs can track people across water. Walking through water stirs up sediments. Dogs smell the odors released from this and can track you across a stream or creek.”

Even if they couldn’t, wouldn’t you just have to run them along the sides of the body of water until they pick up the scent where the person exited?

“Was there ever a good reason for voir dire in jury selection, as currently practiced?”

The only thing I can think of is that it allows the defense some kind of recourse if the court personnel are gaming the system to pack the jury for the prosecution’s benefit.

I got bounced from a murder case jury by the prosecution for being a newspaper reporter (I work in a neighboring county) and knowing too much, or so I strongly suspect.

Comment #64: witless chum  on  06/17  at  02:55 PM

Kristin and Auguste:

http://www.aces.edu/pubs/docs/U/UNP-0066/UNP-0066.pdf

You might want to look at this.  Yes, the reasons for nervousness can vary.  I haven’t researched the studies to find out if dogs are also using facial clues, which lie detectors can’t.  My objection was to de Becker’s and hence Kristin’s more sweeping dismissal “that dogs and humans are reacting to the same thing.”  Bullshit.  A dog has a sense of smell 100x greater than humans.  So, in situations where a human is good at keeping most of their adrenalin down - and yeah, you can do it easily with practice, animal trainers have to all the time, but a bit gets released before you consciously damp it down. 

Now, I understand de Becker has a different purpose in writing, which I am sympathetic to, but I’m guessing even he would admit this as an overgeneralization of dog ability.

Comment #65: phylosopher  on  06/17  at  02:57 PM

I myself REMAIN shocked at the extent to which justice systems are NOT happy to do DNA testing to GET INNOCENT PEOPLE OUT OF JAIL.

For all that I am often ashamed of my state (Texas), I have to say that in this particular circumstance I love love love my local government.  Oh the state government is still shit, but our county District Attorney (a Democrat and a black man, which may be somewhat relevant) actively helps get people in prison exonerated on DNA evidence.  We have one of the highest exoneration rates anywhere. 

Talk to a few people with fibromyalgia or broken bones and you’ll find out that many people do pick up changes in barometric pressure. Usually in the form of “damn, it hurts”.

Oh Jesus fuck yes.  Yes, I can feel changes in ambient pressure.  Not in any kind of gradated way, it just seems there’s a threshold where all the alarms and klaxons and sirons go off.  It’s storm season here, so whee!

Comment #66: kaninchen  on  06/17  at  03:42 PM

Link

A new study from England’s University of Lincoln reports that dogs, like humans, look left toward the right-hand side of human faces, a mechanism known as “left gaze bias.” The experiment, led by Dr. Kun Guo, involved filming 17 dogs and their eye movements as they were shown images of people, monkeys, dogs and objects. Guo showed that dogs exhibit “left gaze bias” only when they looked at the images of human faces.

According to the New Scientist, Guo suggests that this behavior has been adapted after hundreds of years of living with humans, as a way to make sense of our emotions. The journal also noted that previous studies suggest the right side of the face may display emotions “more accurately and intensely” than the left.

What researchers found surprising, however, was that dogs continue to demonstrate a left gaze bias when shown upside down faces, while humans do not. It may be that the right side of a dog’s brain, which absorbs information from the opposite visual field, is better able to translate “human facial emotion” than the left. David Mills, Guo’s colleague, told the New Scientist, “The dogs can’t shift this hard-wiring.”

Canine expert Adam Miklosi from Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest, Hungary, told the New Scientist he is skeptical of Guo and Mill’s conclusions: “Dogs may be able to recognise their owner’s face, but there is no evidence that they can recognise human facial emotion.”

A different study, reported in Jan. 2008, examined how capable humans are at determining dog’s emotions based on their barks. Hungarian scientists designed a software program that decodes the emotional reaction of the Mudi breed of dogs based on their growls, yelps and barks. However, the translation software, at 43 percent—compared with humans at 40 percent—was only slightly better at distinguishing a dog’s emotional state.

Csaba Molnar, from Eotvos University in Budapest, told the BBC he considered the experiment a success: “I would say that we proved there are very strong contextual differences between the barks, but that very long further work is needed to determine which emotional states and which characteristics belong to each (different breed).”

Molnar also told the BBC he thinks that future software could be used to analyze human communication.

Comment #67: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  06/17  at  04:31 PM

“Was there ever a good reason for voir dire in jury selection, as currently practiced?”

The only thing I can think of is that it allows the defense some kind of recourse if the court personnel are gaming the system to pack the jury for the prosecution’s benefit.

I got bounced from a murder case jury by the prosecution for being a newspaper reporter (I work in a neighboring county) and knowing too much, or so I strongly suspect.
witless chum on 06/17 at 09:55 AM

I’m not at all sure how it got started in this country (and evidently not in Scotland, at least, so it doesn’t seem to stem from British common law, as I would have assumed) but I know that in the Jim Crow South, juries were completely white, and the voir dire process has been modified to try and give both prosecution and defense an equal shot at pruning the jury pool for each trial—including a certain number of challenges (I believe 5) for no cause whatsoever.

You know, I am a dialectical kind of thinker, often not really thinking at all until I am saying something (often therefore something stupid) and I am realizing that what I am talking about is trying to make voir dire less problematic (with highly mixed and questionable results at that) and your question is more and more valid. Why do we have voir dire at all? When it seems like perhaps a better fix would be just to eliminate it, and go with whatever 12 people pop up in the jury pool next, minus any individuals with obvious and personal conflicts of interest.

Damn, I was gonna just skim the latest Pandagon stuff and then watch some old Dr Who eps, now I gotta hit Wikipedia.

Before I do that though—it certainly was true before we got all elaborate in adding epicycles to the voir dire process, that even in less blatantly biased situation that those classic Dixie all-white juries, individuals who were in some way out of step with the majority often suffered badly at the hands of a jury—either that or the minority of people who invested more in fairness and reasonableness and less in commonly held prejudices would tend to lock or hang the jury. The function of the jury, I learned in a history class (going back to Norman times) was to bring a representative sample of the community into the process of determining justice. Not so much, under the Norman and Plantagenet kings, to bring in moral/ethical values—the kings presumed their appointed justices would do that better than the rabble, thank you—but to serve as a sort of communal memory of the customs (approaching or having the force of law) in their community—for these royal justices were not local, they roamed the kingdom, and needed detailed notes, in a largely illiterate time, about what the ground rules were in each bailiwick.

We’ve apparently reversed that now, with the judge and the counsels for each side having the knowledge of the law, and the community, represented by the jury, being in principle the ultimate source and authority of law.

OK, I’m off to see the WikiWizard…

Comment #68: Mark Foxwell  on  06/17  at  08:58 PM

This has nothing to do with the dog. The dog was incidental. The owner is, contrary to Amanda’s view, extremely unlikely to be innocently stupid. The level of stupidity required boggles the imagination. Far more likely the dog owner made the following calculation:

freedom of innocent man + capturing a real rapist and murder < limelight

The dog owner is an asshole who should be in prison alongside the then and present D.A. unless he’s proven mentally retarded. Seriously.

KMTBERRY  on  06/16  at  07:04 PM
I myself REMAIN shocked at the extent to which justice systems are NOT happy to do DNA testing to GET INNOCENT PEOPLE OUT OF JAIL.
THey just plain don’t CARE if there are innocent people rotting in jail. . .

They care. Very much. And they’re okay with it. Jails are a profit-center for private enterprise. State costs aren’t costs at all—those are the problem of the chumps. So a better justice system would mean less recidivism and therefore less revenue for the prison industrial complex.

. . .letting them go would (presumably) lessen costs.

Yes it would. That’s the problem. There is no gain in correcting the mistakes of a predecessor. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the system is set up to reward evil and punish good.

Comment #69: No One of Consequence  on  06/17  at  09:29 PM

Well, that didn’t take long. It also tells me nothing about the history of voir dire practice here in the USA.

Considering all the long articles on bizarre trivia one can find in Wikipedia I’d have thought someone would have written much more in depth on the history of voir dire there…

I gather that some degree of jury selection is a heritage of English common law, but that in England it has become more restricted, whereas here it seems to have taken on a gargantuan life of its own, stemming apparently (from my quick glances at some of the other links my initial Google search turned up—links I am not at all sure how much reliance to put upon) from “the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution which provide for a fair and impartial jury, voir dire is important in order to achieve a broad representation of the community…”

It would seem that Scotland also had a similar heritage, or got it imposed as part of the UK, but then restricted it as much or more as the English did. Some other Wiki articles also mention that other former British colonies have also expanded rather than contracted voir dire, but I’m guessing not as much as in the USA.

It seems clear to me that indeed voir dire got way more complicated here in the Sixties and after, as direct repercussions of the Civil Rights movement. But I still suspect that if I could find a really comprehensive history of this aspect of the law, I’d find that American law has always tended toward a more elaborate voir dire process. And that indeed it may have more often been for racist and other bigoted purposes rather than their remedy.

American law and sausage factories seem to have a disturbing amount in common, the more I look at it.

Comment #70: Mark Foxwell  on  06/17  at  09:31 PM

Canada doesn’t have a voir dire process (with the questionnaires and the like), but under our system both the defense and prosecution can have a potential juror removed from the pool during selection without having to give an explanation.

In small communities (such as the one I live in), there are good reasons for it: it’s more likely you’ve had direct contact with the people involved, and the potential that has for it to influence your decision.  In the last 18 months, I’ve been called twice for jury duty (should have been once but for a bureaucratic snafu), both times my name was drawn, and both times the defense challenged me.

I obviously don’t know the reasons why, as they don’t have to explain them, but I have my suspicions.  In the first instance the attorney was the same defender who’d cross-examined me when I was one of the main prosecution witnesses in a manslaughter trial a year earlier, and we’d had a very polite verbal duel during the preliminary hearing for that trial when it was blatantly obvious he was trying to get me going in a direction that was helpful to his client, (and incidentally get me to say it was possible that our actions, as first responders on the scene, may have been the ones that actually caused the death).  I wasn’t playing that game and wouldn’t let him get away with it.  So when it was my turn to sit on the jury, the court reporter didn’t have my name out of her mouth before I was challenged and excused.  Understandably, I suspect he was concerned my opinion of him could have hurt his client.

In the second instance, I didn’t know the attorney, but the accused was on trial for sexual assault.  My opinion regarding that is well known locally, and he’d been working for the municipal administration when I was involved in a massive battle with it.  He probably suspected I wouldn’t be partial to him, so it was a rational decision.  (Although, ironically, I hadn’t recognized him at first and he’d been one of the few people involved in that situation I hadn’t had some issue with.)

Comment #71: KeithM  on  06/18  at  02:50 AM

My objection was to de Becker’s and hence Kristin’s more sweeping dismissal “that dogs and humans are reacting to the same thing.” Bullshit.

Lest anyone think that’s de Becker’s faulty analysis there, afaikr it’s not; that was my interpretation after a work shift and screaming kids and yeah, I simplified it. I still think it’s basically true though. The dog doesn’t have a 6th sense, the dog has the same 5 senses I do. And the dog is most likely reacting to me and my reactions, which are reactions to information I’m subconsciously picking up on without having a 6th sense either.

The dog is more attuned to body language and scent than I am, true, but that doesn’t mean the dog can read the contractor’s mind and know he’s a shady sonofabitch planning to use luan board instead of proper siding on my house. Which was my point.

Comment #72: kristin  on  06/18  at  03:55 PM

And you know what, even though I respect my dog’s perceptions and input tremendously, and she has saved my own personal bacon at least once—do I think it should stand up in court as evidence? Hell no.

Sure, she’s probably detecting adrenaline, but it could be adrenalin from me because Contractor Guy is acting skeevy and I’m uncomfortable, it could be adrenaline from Contractor Guy because he’s planning to rape and murder me ... or it could be adrenalin from me because Contractor Guy looks like my old, abusive ex-boyfriend, although he’s as honest as the day is long.

How dogs get their information is tangential to the point Amanda was making, which is that alleged abilities of dogs are being used beyond their appropriate area (dog locates murder victim;s body) and in totally inappropriate areas (dog uses canine 6th sense to find murderer).

Comment #73: kristin  on  06/18  at  04:03 PM

KeithM on 06/17 at 12:40 AM:

  There’s never been a case ever discovered of identical prints.

Nonetheless there have been a few cases of mistaken identification. The American FBI mistakenly matched Brandon Mayfield’s prints to those left behind by one of the Madrid bombers. Fortunately for Brandon, the Spanish concluded the match was negative. However Brandon was not released until after the Spanish identified an Algerian named Ouhnane Daoud as a match for the prints, and found Daoud’s DNA in a cottage where the terrorist cell was believed to have held planning sessions.


This paper covers several criticisms.:

VI. UNIQUENESS

  It is often asserted that fingerprints are unique. This is really
asking the wrong question. A comparison to a similar issue in the
interpretation of DNA evidence is instructive. Before DNA
evidence is introduced in court, an expert sometimes states that
every person’s DNA (except that of identical twins) is unique to
that person. Such a statement is true, but also misleading. The
current systems used to type DNA, as noted earlier, examine only a
very small portion of the human genome. It is not the unrealized
potential of the entire genome, but the statistical calculations
regarding the small fraction examined that informs us about the
strength of the evidence. Similarly, the issue in fingerprint
identification is not whether the surface of the human finger
theoretically contains enough information to permit unique
identification, but whether the latent print being used in a specific
case is sufficient to arrive at such a conclusion.

(From page 163, which is page 21 in the pdf.)

Proficiency tests do not validate a procedure per se, but they can
provide some insight into error rates. In 1995, the Collaborative
Testing Service (CTS) administered a proficiency test that, for the
first time, was “designed, assembled, and reviewed” by the
International Association for Identification (IAI). The results
were disappointing. Four suspect cards with prints of all ten fingers
were provided together with seven latents. Of 156 people taking
the test, only 68 (44%) correctly classified all seven latents.
Overall, the tests contained a total of 48 incorrect identifications.

 

(From page 167, which is pg 25 in the pdf.)

Comment #74: llewelly  on  06/19  at  01:17 AM

Hmmmm. I had heard that a dog can “give testimony” only under strict circumstances (dog must be a bloodhound, must be specifically trained, one trained handler per dog, must follow a trail directly from the scene of the crime to the defendant).

Comment #75: ralphmerridew  on  06/19  at  09:24 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.