Talk:Joseph Kappen
| While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Police initially convicted wrong men re Lynette White
editIt should be routinely stated that completely innocent men were initially convicted. The fact that Wikipedia usually doesn't do it in case like this article display the "Patton 360/The Bill" nature of thinking (by police and by osmosis Wikipedia writers).
It is countered by this abstract concept - that fingerprints and DNA etc don't make the police get it right - they stop the police from getting it wrong - and those 2 concepts ARE different.
i.e. all police assertions made in court cases based on one set of evidence should always be vindicated by later evidence developments - the previous evidence method is PROVED bogus or fallible otherwise.
Psychological Profiling is probably the best known example of that - later DNA evidence shows about a 50/50 success rate with it - so no better than tossing a coin.
(e.g. I've long argued for a Wikipedia article list of crime cases where Psychological Profilers swore blind to police and courts etc that is was person A who was then convicted when it later turned out it was person B proved by later DNA etc - as with Colin Stagg and Richard Jewel etc - how about it Wikipedia?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)