I've previously written about there was only a 40% chance OJ killed his
   ex-wife and Goldman. I've also written about how the arguments on the
   Clipper chip wasn't convincing.
   It also leads to arguments about how arguments on parallel construction
   is not convincing, those arguments pretty much boil down to the
   government is being suspiciously secretive and illegally dishonest.
   I found the arguments on parallel construction to be more convincing
   than the Clipper chip though, but upon further thought, I'm not longer
   convinced by current arguments against parallel construction. The
   defendant still committed the crime (ignoring selective enforcement),
   it is just that classified information is used as hints to find a
   different set of evidence. They were proven guilty beyond a reasonable
   doubt, a very high bar to meet.
   Or is it a very high bar to meet? The ACLU, the great absolutionists of
   our time, insist on no death penalty. Because based on the number of
   people who were exonerated before ever being executed should have
   instead been sentenced to life imprisonment, who if exonerated, would
   still be released? Well ignoring that, there is an alarming number of
   people convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on some
   circumstantial evidence here, prior relationship there, lack of alibi,
   and having the same blood type (although thanks to CSI, more exacting
   and numerous tests are demanded now), and you have a pretty convincing
   story (which is all it takes).
   Obviously the proper argument is to find that all murderers were
   incorrectly convicted and should be retried under stricter procedures.
   Everyone bemoans that Matthew Keys was convicted by... a jury. We have
   fallen far, far, below our desired standard for "... ten guilty persons
   escape than that one innocent suffer".
   My argument about parallel construction is different, the defendants
   should have access to classified information to prove their innocence
   if there is a large scale program by the government to prove guilt
   using classified information. It could give an edge to the defendant to
   find that one pattern or one bit of evidence that would throw doubt
   onto the prosecution's case. Because the defendant is not presumed
   innocent. If there is no doubt as to the prosecution's case, the jury
   will convict, do not delude yourself otherwise.
   It's funny how the status quo stays the same when it benefits the
   government, but suddenly we have a FISA Amendment or a Patriot Act
   otherwise?