f15c6cc4   
   XPost: can.general, ab.general, can.politics   
   From: campbell@neotext.ca   
      
   On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 08:06:12 -0700, OlegP wrote:   
      
   > << Police admit they had the wrong man in Banff sexual assault; renew   
   > search   
   > CHQR Newsroom   
   > 7/20/2009   
   >   
   > Banff R.C.M.P. have released the man they took into custody after the   
   > vicious sexual assault of a young woman. It happened on a quiet   
   > residential street, the early morning of July 12th.   
   > The 38-year old suspect was arrested and charged two days later after a   
   > composite sketch was released.   
   > Now, however, Investigators with the Calgary Major Crimes unit, and   
   > Calgary and Banff General Investigative units uncovered evidence to   
   > suggest that suspect was not responsible for the attack. They talked it   
   > over with Alberta Justice, who agreed with the move. RCMP Spokesman,   
   > Sgt. Patrick Webb, says the freed man fit the description, but have new   
   > information that makes it highly unlikely he was the culprit.   
   > He says it's a highly rare case where the initial evidence was   
   > contradicted by further investigation. >>   
   >   
   > HAH! Highly Rare?  They wish...   
   >   
   > If there's one thing that DNA testing has exposed, it's the fact that   
   > many wrongful convictions have occurred and do occur.  The fortunate few   
   > who have been exonerated by science are probably just the tip of a large   
   > iceberg.   
   >   
   > The scientific method has been gaining ground for over 400 years and   
   > it's given society much, much benefit we take for granted.  It happens   
   > to work; the scientific method works much better than the   
      
   The truth will set us free ;-)  I'd argue that the underlying   
   revelations about science are older than the Renaissance, but   
   that limitations of publishing print made literacy a limited   
   luxury enjoyed by few.   
      
   Dhu   
      
   > "pseudoscientific method" of starting with a conclusion and trying to   
   > "prove" it.  That method doesn't work, but courtrooms aren't always   
   > scientific in the way they try to pursue the truth.  "Proving your case"   
   > isn't the way science works; you look at all available evidence without   
   > bias and let the facts form the conclusions, if any.   
   >   
   > In fact, the legal system is designed more like an "oubliette" where   
   > people are coerced to plead guilty, even if they aren't, just to avoid   
   > much harsher sentences and conditions. And once they do, they are locked   
   > away in a system which isn't very interesting in hearing new evidence,   
   > unless it's unquestionably compelling.  Few are often so fortunate.   
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
   Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)