The Boy in the Water Case: US Crime Scene Investigator Karen Smith slams NZ police..

smartcooky

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
27,637
Location
Nelson, New Zealand
.. over their "pathetic" investigation.

Tell us something new love... most of us who follow criminology and criminal cases in this country already know that our cops are lousy investigators, as evidenced by the complete pig's breakfast they made of the Bain and the Lundy investigations.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/us-detective-calls-nz-police-investigation-pathetic

Karen Smith, a retired American crime scene investigator, has spent more than 400 hours investigating the death of Gore toddler Lachie Jones and says the police investigation into his death was an “across the board system failure".

In an interview from her home in the United States, Smith explains why she is working on the case pro bono after being contacted by a friend from New Zealand.
"I have seen a lot of really bad police investigations in my time. I’ve made mistakes of my own, so I’m not perfect. But the lack of effort, the lack of circumspection, the lack of taking the information and going ‘maybe we got this wrong, maybe we need to look in a different direction’. I think it’s pathetic.

Smith tells Newsroom she thinks there were two forms of bias that crept into the investigation into Lachie’s death – anchoring bias and confirmation bias.

"Anchoring bias is when that first piece of information drives the rest of it without any consideration of other alternatives. Confirmation bias is when every single piece of evidence or information you find you slam that square peg into the round hole and try to make it fit into your initial thought. So I think both of those types of bias really pushed this case, to the detriment of anything to the alternative. And that is a huge problem in any investigation."​
Those of us familiar with the Scott Watson case will recognize this aspect.

 
... the death of Gore toddler Lachie Jones ...

I'm pleased someone is taking notice of this appalling case. I've been aware of it for years and have been stunned at the cops' attitude.

He was a toddler for crissakes and deserved better than the lip service cops paid to the case.
 
Among all law enforcement and judiciaries in the Anglosphere, NZ's seems to take the honours for incompetence (and often outright criminality in covering up the consequences of that incompetence).

IN this case they behaved as if the patently suspicious death of a small child was too much trouble to investigate, that there were more important things for them to do. What could possibly warrant priority over something like this?
 
It's not even a case of priorities, it's down to having an unbelievable number of stupid and biased cops in the force.

One cop decides X has happened and the investigation follows that sole line, and if in doubt, manufacture evidence to fit.

Thankfully, all our cops are moving to Queensland.
 

From an article linked in that article...

NOTE: The Police contend that Lachie walked from his home to where he ended up being found, and that his death was a result of drowning

The questions that won't go away

- How did Lachie walk 1.2km from his home, down a gravel road and across scrubby land, in bare feet, without getting a scratch on him?

- If he’d only been missing for a couple of hours, why was his body stone-cold when he was found?

- Why was his body found face up when people who drown are usually found face down?

- If he drowned, why wasn’t there water in his lungs?
 
From an article linked in that article...

NOTE: The Police contend that Lachie walked from his home to where he ended up being found, and that his death was a result of drowning

The questions that won't go away

- How did Lachie walk 1.2km from his home, down a gravel road and across scrubby land, in bare feet, without getting a scratch on him?

- If he’d only been missing for a couple of hours, why was his body stone-cold when he was found?

- Why was his body found face up when people who drown are usually found face down?

- If he drowned, why wasn’t there water in his lungs?
If I may play advocatus diaboli:
1. How sure is it that he was barefoot? Was there grass on which he could have walked?
2. What was the water temperature? And what was the body temperature when it was found?
3. Usually? In fact for slimmer bodies, especially males, face down is entirely possible. Pliny was wrong....
4. Laryngospasm. If water entered the larynx or trachea there is a tendency for the vocal cords to constrict and sealing the airway.
 
If I may play advocatus diaboli:
1. How sure is it that he was barefoot? Was there grass on which he could have walked?

On a farm race, no. It will be gravel side to side. His shoes weren't gone and unless he bought some on the way, he was barefoot.

2. What was the water temperature? And what was the body temperature when it was found?

January evening pond temperature would be in the low 20s C. No idea what the corpse was.
 
If I may play advocatus diaboli:
1. How sure is it that he was barefoot? Was there grass on which he could have walked?
2. What was the water temperature? And what was the body temperature when it was found?
3. Usually? In fact for slimmer bodies, especially males, face down is entirely possible. Pliny was wrong....
4. Laryngospasm. If water entered the larynx or trachea there is a tendency for the vocal cords to constrict and sealing the airway.


I went barefoot on lots of unfriendly surfaces when I was a skinny kid, up until my mid teens. Gravel and plants that would abrade or cut my feet (or just hurt) if I walked on them now, wouldn't have slowed me down or injured me then. The square cube law makes it easier for a toddler. Even more so, if he was accustomed to being barefoot.

A three-year-old's body would also cool down in a fraction of the time of an adult's.
 

Back
Top Bottom