Interpretation
I have noticed something peculiar in my reading and watching of crime series…be they of fiction or not. Without even delving into the vague “science” that is Profiling I noticed that criminal investigations are often flawed in their procedures and typically rely on an element of luck for a succesful outcome.
Putting the clues together, which is the primary task of a police investigator, is the first step in the process that can go horribly wrong. Objectivity, which does not rightly exist when taking into account our current definition of the word, is one of the perceived requirements of analysis pertaining to the crime scene and later clues. Yet, putting the clues together requires a set of imagination, to obtain connections that cannot be perceived one must rely on the mind rather than on the facts…and in that lies the difficulty.
Consider two items, and between those items lies a thread of wool connecting them. In that scenario the connection is apparent, it is visible…one can detect it through the five senses. But this thread of wool is not present in police investigation in which each individual element must be linked coherently in order to obtain a clear picture of the true series of events. It is imagination and, to an extent, probability that determines the perceived connections. No matter how hard we try, when the connection is not visible it requires of us to guess at it and this allows sufficient room for error.
One of the safeguards against that shortcoming is an abundance of evidence. A scenario in which each element can be linked to the grand scheme in only one way is most desirable but usually not part of reality. By gathering as much evidence as possible however the likelihood of false connections decreases, but it is not possible to rule out errors in judgment entirely. Another factor that limits risk is a confession. When an individual confesses to a crime and has sufficient insight into the wrongdoing this is typically taken as a sign that the case has come to an end. Yet, a confession and even inside knowledge are not always as tight as they should be. It is entirely possible that the individual who confesses is involved (hence knows intimate information) and confesses for somebody else. There is never proficient closure because clues and their interpretations are typically fallible.
It’s the same with science. Science in itself is one huge ladder in which one conclusion must lead to the next…always obtaining the most functional result at that current time. But just as bad science can be harmful to our society…so can bad police investigation. The pursuit of functionality is the highest good but, at the same time, it’s acknowledging that an ultimate conclusion has not necessarily been reached. This must be an incredibly tiresome way of spending one’s life. As long as we are aware that it is our interpretation that does the concluding and that we can never look outside our own interpretation we must agree that we cannot know whether or not a higher truth lies beyond it.
Police investigation, the court of law, science, math, philosophy…it’s all one big clusterfuck of interpretation. It’s something we have to live with.