Hacker News Reader

Comment by mirimir | Hacker News Reader

This is not the only situation where investigators are hiding iffy information sources, and committing perjury. We all know about deals with informants, who sometimes receive immunity for major crimes, in exchange for their information.

But the elephant in the corner is DEA's Special Operations Division (SOD).[0] This funnels information from the CIA and NSA to the FBI, IRS, DHS and USCIS. But you will find nothing about SOD in any of the cases where it reportedly played a key role (according to that DEA Museum lecture).

Anyway, there's no evidence that SOD has ever been used except for major drug cases. But there's no reason to assume that it hasn't been, either.

0) https://www.deamuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/042215-...

View on HN

> there's no evidence that SOD has ever been used except for major drug cases. But there's no reason to assume that it hasn't been, either

What does this mean?

Lack of evidence of something does not equal evidence of non-existence of said thing.

A more common phrasing is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Proof of guilt is required in criminal case however, so absence of evidence is evidence of innocence.

Absence of evidence only means that there is not sufficient evidence to pronounce the defendant guilty. It is not evidence of innocence. They are not the same.

You can either be innocent or guilty in court. So yes. It is.

You are never declared innocent, only not guilty. Functionality they are similar as you can't be tried for the same crime. But, being declared 'not guilty' is not useful in a civil case related to the same issue.

Never is a strong word.

A woman who spent 17 years in a California prison for a murder she didn’t commit was declared factually innocent Friday, clearing the way for her to collect about $600,000 in compensation from the state.

[0] https://globalnews.ca/news/1686476/judge-declares-woman-who-...

That’s a paltry sum to exchange for 17 years.

Factually innocent is separated from actual innocence. http://floridainnocence.org/content/?p=7019

Justice Department officials said it is not their job to notify prisoners that they might be incarcerated for something that they now concede is not a crime.

Personally, I've always liked the Scottish third option of "not proven."

Logically, they are not the same.

In the US, the accused in a criminal case is presumed innocent unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty. The defendant in a civil case is presumed not liable unless the plaintiff can prove by preponderance of evidence that they are responsible.

Under those standards, without evidence, the defense wins. Practically speaking, it doesn't matter if they are innocent or unprovably guilty. Al Capone [probably] wasn't innocent, but he was not found guilty of anything until they tried to get him for tax evasion.

> Proof of guilt is required in criminal case

Proof of culpability is required in both civil and criminal cases, though the standard of proof.is different.

> so absence of evidence is evidence of innocence.

Absence of evidence of guilt isn't evidence of innocence, though absence of evidence of guilt makes a not guilty verdict nore likely. The presumption of innocence means that innocence is the default conclusion in the absence of evidence, it doesn't change what is or isn't evidence of innocence.

True. But we do know that thousands of people in the criminal justice system have lied about secret evidence. If even 10% of them went to trial, I bet that relevant evidence would come out. Some of them could accept plea deals, and testify against their managers.

That's quite the fantasy, isn't it?

In the context of Criminal Procedure and Rules of Evidence, the prosecution has to turn over all evidence (including mitigating evidence) in discovery and failure to do so means: a. It doesn’t exist, b. If it does the prosecution is risking mistrial; their career/disbarment; and over turning convictions going back in time.

https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/01/09/dark-side/secret-origi...

You're not wrong, but you're also significantly overstating the risks to prosecutors. Prosecutors are rarely punished for misconduct. http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-lying-prosecutor...

Indeed it’s so common there’s an accepted term for burying your poison vine: parallel construction.

This. It has become the norm. I suppose that it's justified by outrage over the sorts of crime involved. But with SOD and Stingrays, we're talking about widespread subversion of federal agencies, state police and prosecutors, and probably at least some judges. It has indeed been a criminal conspiracy. Not that anyone will ever be prosecuted for it.

I don't know about the US but in the UK there has just been a major and sadly underreported scandal with police failing to disclose evidence to defence solicitors.

We know that federal and state agencies, investigators and prosecutors have lied for decades about SOD. They've used parallel construction to build clean cases. And they've not disclosed evidence provided by the NSA or CIA to defendants' counsel.

Why would we assume that evidence provided by the NSA or CIA are only used in drug cases? I mean, look at the list of federal agencies involved. Why would they create a parallel system for prosecuting tax evasion, or child abuse, or whistleblowing, or whatever?

I mean, we know that there's a broad conspiracy to lie. How can we trust liars to only lie about some things? And how could we even trust denials about that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com