An Exercise in Exceptions

Medicine, regardless of how effective it is, can have negative side effects. Normally we are willing to tolerate even severe side effects if it can cure a more serious illness – like awful side effects of chemotherapy that can send cancer into remission. Similarly, we sometimes accept intrusive investigative tactics if they help protect society – such as investigators pretending to be criminals while undercover to catch serious criminals. But what of tactics that pose side effects with only questionable benefit? This week, we discuss one such example – the “bait question” which may help detect deception but has the unintended consequence of creating false memories. When investigating a crime, detectives often collect evidence by talking with people, such as an eyewitness that saw the crime, someone who can corroborate an alibi ( well, hopefully ), or a suspect who may have committed the crime. Of course, people’s statements to police aren’t always trustworthy. After all, if they co...

There are rigorous procedures for handling physical evidence. Why not for memory?  Anyone who has watched enough crime dramas can describe many of the fundamentals of collecting and handling physical evidence. Photograph everything as it was when you found it. Wear gloves. Avoid doing anything that could contaminate the samples. And always keep notes on where you found evidence, when you collected it, how you stored it, and who had it at what time. Meticulously maintaining a “chain of custody” – a record of how evidence has been handled – helps protect the integrity of the evidence. And in case of deliberate or accidental mishandling, it helps identify whether and how much its integrity has been damaged. It’s easy to see why this is important. How can we trust DNA testing on, for example, an article of clothing found at a crime scene, if we have no idea how it was handled and stored on the way from the scene to the lab? If it was handled with bare hands (or previously used glov...

In this chat format, we gather regular authors and guests in Slack and have a moderated conversation, guided by prompts and questions selected in advance. Participants get to respond to each other's points, make comments, and ask each other questions in real-time. The transcript has been lightly edited. Will Crozier &#x1F419 Welcome to the inaugural chat of An Exercise in Exceptions ! In this format, we'll have a conversation about a topic, rather than writing a typical blog post. We'll call in some guests that can contribute something unique to the conversation, and get their thoughts to explore some topic, issue, or question. Today's topic: Brendan Dasseys' confession and the 7th Circuit Court's decision to uphold Dassey's conviction. But before we get into that, let's introduce ourselves. Timothy and I have our bio pages up on the website, so first-time readers can check out those. Today, we're joined by Fabiana ...

In December 2015, Netflix brought the justice system to the forefront of the public consciousness with its award-winning documentary Making a Murderer . The 10-episode serialization followed the story of Steven Avery – a Wisconsin man who was wrongfully convicted of rape in 1985, spent 18 years in prison before being exonerated, and was then arrested and ultimately convicted for the murder of Teresa Halbach in 2005. While the documentary focuses primarily on Steven Avery as the main suspect, Making a Murderer also highlighted a lesser-known element of the case: the confession and conviction of Brendan Dassey, Avery’s nephew. Although there’s a lot to analyze in this case, we focus here on a nagging question – did Brendan Dassey give a false confession? Dassey’s involvement in the case was little understood until Netflix’s deep dive into the case, but has emerged as one of the most scrutinized and tragic elements. Briefly, the police focused on Avery as a suspect in the disappe...