The Truth of the Matter - Credibility
by Shawn K. Inlow
In last week’s article, we started by introducing the subject of “Sources” and the concept of attribution in critical thinking. By using the fictitious story, below, we got as far as counting two possible sources for a typical news story; the police, and, indirectly, the defendant.”
This is where we left the story last week.
"Local authorities say they have solved a robbery that occurred last winter at the Altoona Quickie-Go.
Police say Roberto Dominguez, 27, of Miami, Florida, appeared before local police and confessed to the crime which occurred during an overnight snow storm more than a year ago, last January 7th.
According to the Affidavit of Probable Cause, police say Dominguez appeared on station driving a car reported stolen from Miami. Dominguez said he'd hoped to reconnect with a former lover from Juniata, but that he had died of AIDS.
Dominguez was arraigned and lodged in Blair County Prison without bail on charges of robbery, recklessly endangering another person, and multiple counts of theft, receiving stolen property, theft of a motor vehicle and drug charges."
Let’s consider now the credibility of the two sources. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the goddam Lone Ranger and 1 being Snidely Whiplash, how would you rate the police? Keep that number in your head.
Now consider the defendant from the story. How would you rate the credibility, from 1 to 5, of an accused who has confessed to robbery, drug use and grand theft auto? Keep that number in your head as we talk further.
The police have some cold facts in their favor. The accused is in possession of a stolen car, that is true. But that does not mean he robbed a Quickie-Go. It means theft is something he would conceivably do.
If his story checks out about his former boyfriend, that does not mean he robbed a Quickie-Go. It means he has perhaps been in the area when the crime occurred.
The defendant’s confession makes it a slam dunk because it makes no sense that someone would admit to a crime they did not commit. Right?
So, if someone had the time and imagination to conduct a really full investigation, an investigator (be it police or a reporter) might, while under deadline for publication or under pressure to close out dozens of investigations, try to actually prove the elements of the confession itself.
Probably wasting their time, right? Here’s the follow up story that would have appeared in the Altoona Mirror after his preliminary hearing:
“Roberto Dominguez, 27, of Miami, Florida, waived his right to a preliminary hearing today in Blair County Central Court. A plea agreement is in hand, the details of which will become known at his sentencing next month. Dominguez faces charges over the January 7, 2024, robbery of the Altoona Quickie-Go. District Court Justice Robert Palmer remanded Dominguez to Blair County Prison pending sentencing.”
Case closed.
Now, let’s go back and actually go the extra mile, shall we? You and I, we have all day and nothing better to do. And in the spirit of fun, I’d like to turn you on to a quirky bit of information. Let’s see what you do with it.
Fact of the matter? Federally speaking, preliminary hearings are rare. As of 2018, only 2% of cases went to trial. 98% of defendants either pleaded guilty or had their cases dismissed. Of those who went to trial, fewer than 1% of all cases were acquitted. Of that small percentage who took trials, 320 of 1,594 cases (20%) resulted in acquittal.
This might suggest that 1) the police don't bring junk cases. It might also suggest that 2) people don't take a hearing or trial unless they've got a good reason.
Let’s go back to the scene of the crime and do some digging.
The police report says that Destiny Trinisizer was working overnight that night. Other than providing that the Quickie-Go did not have cameras inside the store, she provided little useful information. She said she was terrified and could not describe the robber’s clothing. Just that he used a knife and disguised himself by placing a blanket over his head and that he ran off that way through deep snow.
Police found a suspicious person at a nearby street corner shortly after the crime and brought him back to the Quickie-Go. Trinisizer, though, could not identify the subject as the robber.
“Old Brody,” she said, “Comes in every morning for coffee. He’d never do anything like this.”
Old Brody was released from the show-up. Police had searched him prior to transporting him to the store and found in his inside coat pockets a number of strange odds and ends and a considerable amount of spare change.
In the morning, an abandoned stolen car was found parked a block from the scene of the crime. After a morning of responding to numerous petty break-ins and burglaries overnight around Juniata, police connected a discarded blanket with the stolen car with yet another nearby burglary.
After requesting another interview with Old Brody, police noted that he was exceedingly nervous and displayed an obvious twitch when asked pertinent questions. Police asked for and were given the boots he wore the prior night walking around the neighborhood.
While forensics could not match the style and make of the boot to evidence at the scene, one boot did fit perfectly into a frozen footprint left by the fleeing suspect.
Old Brody was listed as a suspect in the crime, but because of the victim’s inability to make a positive identification, he could not be charged at the time.
Now we have four sources of information, not just one like back when we started, and interesting tidbits of evidence; physical facts that may or may not fly in the face of prosecution.
NOW, how does this new information from the police report, but which never made it to the charging documents, affect your opinion of 1. the affiant (police) 2. the suspect (Dominguez) and 3. the victim (Trinisizer)? On a scale of 1 to 5, in your mind, how reliable is Trinisizer? How reliable is Old Brody? How does the new evidence affect your judgements from the beginning of the article?
Here is a case that never made it to discovery (when all evidence in a case is shared between the prosecution and the defense) which was being resolved with a guilty plea and a reduced sentence. How much of the truth, and nothing but the truth really matters here?
All we’re doing here is introducing to a curious mind an element of doubt.
Do you think a trial might have introduced credible doubt despite the testimony by the accused against himself? That is a question we won’t ever know in the case of Roberto Dominguez.
___________________________________________________________________
Next week, we will look at the role of evidence in critical thinking. Thanks for joining me this week and every Thursday, when I’m writing on intellectual hygiene, critical thinking and the objective truth.
I also publish on culture and politics on the weekends over at Culture and Criticism.com. Sunday I wrote on the “American Putsch," where I wonder how easy it is these days to tell the terrorist from the police.
And on Tuesdays, I’m publishing a new chapter every week of my sci-fi novel, “Solid,” over at LaunchPad Press at Substack. It is the story of a world sliding into climate change heck and a young, unusual girl who is unaware that she holds the key to the future!
It’s all free of charge and I hope you get as much fun out of it as I do.
Until next time. Enjoy!
Comments
Post a Comment