What is common sense now was still common sense 40 or more years ago. And most of today's standard lineup procedures are nothing more than writing down on paper the standard practices for conducting a lineup as unbiased and impartially as possible. More on that later.
The document you linked earlier is from a training manual designed to complement the research report
Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement, which was published in 1999.
From the first page of the report:
Quote:
US Dept. of Justice
This document is not intended to create, does not create, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal.
Opinions or points of view expressed in this document represent a consensus of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.
|
From a
paper written by three of the authors of the report, which was published in 2003.
Quote:
John Turtle, et al.
Suggested procedures are based on decades of social science research as well as the recommended practices found in the recent report on the Robert Sophonow case in Manitoba and in a 1999 U.S. National Institute of Justice document distributed to all police services in the U.S....
Concern over the problems associated with eyewitness identification prompted U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno to request a review of this issue in May 1998. Based on this request, the U.S. National Institute of Justice recruited a group of police officers, district attorneys, defence attorneys, and social scientists to address the issue of eyewitness evidence. An initial planning panel of nine representatives from all four disciplines expanded into the 34-member group called the Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. Seventeen of the 34 members were law enforcement officers, six were district attorneys, five were defence attorneys, and six were social scientists, three of whom are the authors of the current article...[emphasis added]
|
Please explain how "decades of social science research" is equivalent to "common sense 40 or more years ago," and how a comprehensive report authored by a group of 34 experts is equivalent to "nothing more than writing down on paper the standard practices for conducting a lineup as unbiased and impartially as possible."
What myself or "other conspiracists would likely claim" is a straw man argument, period.
No. It is a prediction based on numerous observations of the actions of conspiracists such as yourself, and I stand by it.
I haven't uncovered Texas Criminal Code procedures for that time as yet, so I don't know what was standard practice for lineups, if it existed.
I seriously doubt that this was codified at the time.
But I don't see how it would have been considered a "reasonably fair" lineup procedure in Dallas, or Texas, or any other state, whether in 1963, 1943, or 1923.
Quote:
Warren Commission
The Dallas Police Department furnished the Commission with pictures of the men who appeared in the lineups with Oswald, and the Commission has inquired into general lineup procedures used by the Dallas police as well as the specific procedures in the lineups involving Oswald. The Commission is satisfied that the lineups were conducted fairly.
|
Now,
turbonium, if, as you contend, the lineups were so unfair by the standards of the time, why did the
Chief Justice of the United States, who only two years later would write the Supreme Court's landmark
Miranda decision protecting the rights of suspects in police custody, acquiesce in this wording of the report?? Also, your opinion on legal matters has frankly been conclusively demonstrated to be non-credible.
[edit: publication year of report]