Whoa bucky! I never made any assertion about police abuses/brutality. Those are things I am also concerned about and they are not the topic of this piece. I’m saying that verbal interrogation is a real methodology and that we don’t don’t need to have physical evidence to be able to assess whether or not someone is telling the truth. “If we rely solely on physical evidence (or lack thereof) and do not synthesize all of the available information into some kind of cohesive whole, then justice might well be miscarried — in a courtroom, in a police station or in your own life.”
In fact, if you got down off your high horse for long enough to actually read this instead of simply planning your shot at me from the bow, you’d notice that I commented on how the interrogation method used by most police forces in the US is based in a methodology designed to get a confession, rather than the preferable PEACE methodology that is used in the UK, which is targeted towards getting at the truth.
Maybe I should’ve made it more overt, but this was a rebuttal to those who claimed that we couldn’t know who was telling the truth in the Kavanaugh hearing because there was no physical evidence. Meanwhile, it was entirely obvious, based on demeanor and the way that questions were evaded or answered openly and transparently, who was telling the truth and who wasn’t.