GV>It's not a big secret, nor would it be.  The fashion in which the unit was
  >used would almost certainly come out in court, something that the police
  >officer would know and expect, so it's not a problem.  The police don't 
"hid
  >things from the defense....
I wasn't suggesting that the police would hide anything.  My point was
that such a proceedure was asking for an attack from a defense 
attorney.....so why let it happen?
CH> And who do you think doesn't know what they are talking about,
CH> Glenn?
GV>Whoever made the original post about thinking it was wrong that the 
recorder
  >could be turned on/off...that's who...
You are interpreting what was said incorrectly.  The point was not that
it was wrong that the recorder could be turned on and off.  The point
WAS that such a procedure could invite problems at trial which could 
have been avoided.
GV>"If"...."If" is one of those big small words.  "What if?".  What if your
  >auntie had balls?  She'd be your uncle!!
  >Anything can happen in a trial.  It's not up to some citizen who does some
  >wiring work for the cops to make that decision, as he probably has no idea
  >what they are even thinking about.  The prosecution could just as easly
First of all, Glenn; I probably spent more time as a deputy sheriff 
than you probably have spent in your whole career.
GV>what they are even thinking about.  The prosecution could just as easly
  >describe the recorder unit and fully justify the need to turn it on/off.  
If
Except that under AMERICAN law, the defense could ask for and obtain a
jury instruction that they may INFER from the absence of the missing
conversations (due to selective turning on and off of the recorder) 
that those conversations would have included statements favorable to 
the defendant and be exculpatory in nature.
GV>you were a juror would you like to sit through listening to 8 hours of 
traff
  >going by or the wind blowing, or dishes being cleaned?  Of course 
not...THIN
  >a bit!!!  If you were an electrician, and I came to a job site and told 
ou
  >that I personally thought you should install another breaker unit just 
becau
  >the one you were using looked too small in my eyes and I felt that it 
ight
  >cause a fire, you'd tell me to jump in a lake, that it's fine and I didn't
  >know what I was talking about.  Conversley, the armchair cops and lawyers
  >should do the same thing as they don't know what they are talking about, 
nor
  >is it any of their concern in the first place.
Armchair cops and lawyers?  That's a good one Glenn.  I would remind 
you that the prosecutors are also lawyers; and they don't need any more
holes in their case than neccessary. IMHO.  On the other hand, Glenn
the prosecution WOULD be able to respond to the jury instruction 
(inference) with an explanation such as yours...........but might not
be as ready to accept it as accurate.
CHARLES HUNTER
 * 1st 2.00 #9124 * "Windws is ine for bckgroun comunicaions" - Bll Gats, 192
--- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0671
---------------