PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "We do our job every day knowing victims and families are in pain, communities are scared, and the public wants fast answers where there are often only questions. We also know that if we fail to apprehend the person responsible, they could -- and often do -- strike again. It is an uphill battle, to say the least. This is why we believe in the use of best practices in criminal investigations, including those recommended by scientific research for eyewitness identification procedures: blinded administration, neutral instructions like informing the witness the suspect may or may not be in the line-up, creating the line-up so the suspect does not standout, and recording the witness's confidence if the witness makes an identification. These procedures implemented together by law enforcement would decrease the likelihood of a witness mistakenly identifying the wrong and innocent person. "
-----------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTARY: "Police can help prevent false identification by eyewitnesses," by Chief William Brooks 111 and Major Michael Smathers, published on March 21, 2018, by nola.com. (William Brooks III is chief of the Norwood, Mass., Police Department. Major Michael Smathers serves in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department.)
GIST: "As veteran law enforcement officers, we have pledged our lives to the
mission of policing. That mission, we believe, is a duty to protect
every American's right to a life that is safe and free.
The duty to protect. It's a simple phrase but a daunting task. Like a doctor, entrusted to save lives, is constantly searching for the right diagnoses and the best treatment, our profession demands a headlong search for truth and the best tools to find it. We do our job every day knowing victims and families are in pain, communities are scared, and the public wants fast answers where there are often only questions. We also know that if we fail to apprehend the person responsible, they could -- and often do -- strike again. It is an uphill battle, to say the least. This is why we believe in the use of best practices in criminal investigations, including those recommended by scientific research for eyewitness identification procedures: blinded administration, neutral instructions like informing the witness the suspect may or may not be in the line-up, creating the line-up so the suspect does not standout, and recording the witness's confidence if the witness makes an identification. These procedures implemented together by law enforcement would decrease the likelihood of a witness mistakenly identifying the wrong and innocent person. This session Senate Bill 38, a proposal for statewide adoption of these best practices is before the Louisiana Legislature, and we urge lawmakers as well as our fellow officers to support this bill. These reforms are backed not just by a study or two, but by four decades of research that culminated in the National Academy of Science's report in 2015. They are used not just by a jurisdiction here and there, but by the FBI and 19 states around the country, including Florida, Texas, Georgia and North Carolina. Those states know that being tough on crime means you have to be accurate on crime, too. These measures cost little to implement, and any department whether small or large, rural or urban, can use them. We represent two very different communities and states: a small town in Massachusetts and a larger urban community in North Carolina. However, we know that flaws in human memory are the same regardless of where you are in the country. In both of our states, innocent people have been wrongly convicted because of a misidentification. And in both of our states, for each of those innocent men and women, a guilty person has gone free. These are terrible truths, but we must never forget them. Of the 354 DNA-based exonerations in this country, nearly three out of four involved a mistaken identification. Senate Bill 38 would mandate a scientifically proven method that would greatly reduce the chance for any future case in Louisiana, and that is why we are such strong supporters of this measure. In half of these cases the exoneration led to the guilty party, but only after they had gone on to commit 150 additional crimes, 80 of which were rapes and 35 of which were murders. These numbers may sound cold and clinical, but as officers, we have all seen the faces of victims and their families and know all too well what grief, trauma and loss look like. Change is hard. Accepting mandates from legislatures rather than our own leaders is even harder (and we have struggled with this on many issues, too). As senior police executives who have implemented these proposals ourselves, we have gone all over the United States advocating for these changes. We know it is feasible to successfully implement them here in Louisiana. The costs of inaction are just too high. The science on eyewitness identification is settled, and the best practices have as much support from the law enforcement community as they do from the scientific community, because they produce better evidence and help us do our jobs. A statewide commitment through law is what we need to ensure all officers who have taken the pledge to protect have clear guidelines. Justice for a victim in rural northern Louisiana should not look any different than justice for a victim in Baton Rouge. Some commanders fear that this type of statewide legislation will lead to further and endless meddling of law enforcement polices and practices by legislators. We have not seen this happen in our two states. We have not slipped down any slippery slopes. We may not ever be able to eliminate misidentifications, but using the best practices greatly increases the odds that eyewitness evidence will be accurate and reliable. In other words, as we dive into that search for truth, we have another light to help us find our way. The duty to protect is not an easy oath to take or to maintain, but it is proudly ours. Therefore as law enforcement officers when we are being presented with better tools for better evidence, we must embrace them. We are certain Senate Bill 38 will make policing better in Louisiana and will help you all in your search for the truth on behalf of the citizens you serve."
The duty to protect. It's a simple phrase but a daunting task. Like a doctor, entrusted to save lives, is constantly searching for the right diagnoses and the best treatment, our profession demands a headlong search for truth and the best tools to find it. We do our job every day knowing victims and families are in pain, communities are scared, and the public wants fast answers where there are often only questions. We also know that if we fail to apprehend the person responsible, they could -- and often do -- strike again. It is an uphill battle, to say the least. This is why we believe in the use of best practices in criminal investigations, including those recommended by scientific research for eyewitness identification procedures: blinded administration, neutral instructions like informing the witness the suspect may or may not be in the line-up, creating the line-up so the suspect does not standout, and recording the witness's confidence if the witness makes an identification. These procedures implemented together by law enforcement would decrease the likelihood of a witness mistakenly identifying the wrong and innocent person. This session Senate Bill 38, a proposal for statewide adoption of these best practices is before the Louisiana Legislature, and we urge lawmakers as well as our fellow officers to support this bill. These reforms are backed not just by a study or two, but by four decades of research that culminated in the National Academy of Science's report in 2015. They are used not just by a jurisdiction here and there, but by the FBI and 19 states around the country, including Florida, Texas, Georgia and North Carolina. Those states know that being tough on crime means you have to be accurate on crime, too. These measures cost little to implement, and any department whether small or large, rural or urban, can use them. We represent two very different communities and states: a small town in Massachusetts and a larger urban community in North Carolina. However, we know that flaws in human memory are the same regardless of where you are in the country. In both of our states, innocent people have been wrongly convicted because of a misidentification. And in both of our states, for each of those innocent men and women, a guilty person has gone free. These are terrible truths, but we must never forget them. Of the 354 DNA-based exonerations in this country, nearly three out of four involved a mistaken identification. Senate Bill 38 would mandate a scientifically proven method that would greatly reduce the chance for any future case in Louisiana, and that is why we are such strong supporters of this measure. In half of these cases the exoneration led to the guilty party, but only after they had gone on to commit 150 additional crimes, 80 of which were rapes and 35 of which were murders. These numbers may sound cold and clinical, but as officers, we have all seen the faces of victims and their families and know all too well what grief, trauma and loss look like. Change is hard. Accepting mandates from legislatures rather than our own leaders is even harder (and we have struggled with this on many issues, too). As senior police executives who have implemented these proposals ourselves, we have gone all over the United States advocating for these changes. We know it is feasible to successfully implement them here in Louisiana. The costs of inaction are just too high. The science on eyewitness identification is settled, and the best practices have as much support from the law enforcement community as they do from the scientific community, because they produce better evidence and help us do our jobs. A statewide commitment through law is what we need to ensure all officers who have taken the pledge to protect have clear guidelines. Justice for a victim in rural northern Louisiana should not look any different than justice for a victim in Baton Rouge. Some commanders fear that this type of statewide legislation will lead to further and endless meddling of law enforcement polices and practices by legislators. We have not seen this happen in our two states. We have not slipped down any slippery slopes. We may not ever be able to eliminate misidentifications, but using the best practices greatly increases the odds that eyewitness evidence will be accurate and reliable. In other words, as we dive into that search for truth, we have another light to help us find our way. The duty to protect is not an easy oath to take or to maintain, but it is proudly ours. Therefore as law enforcement officers when we are being presented with better tools for better evidence, we must embrace them. We are certain Senate Bill 38 will make policing better in Louisiana and will help you all in your search for the truth on behalf of the citizens you serve."
The entire commentary can be read at:
http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2018/03/eyewitness_identification.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/
