>Others have pointed out that this happened in the UK, so it's probably not parallel construction anyways.
Yeah, I should've said "parallel construction / source protection / cover story". Parallel construction implies hiding an illicit and/or unethical technique (like warrantless NSA collection methods), but it could also be done to protect a valid information source, like a confidential informant.
>Still, I wanted to get this out there: isn't the claimed story being plausible a pretty important part of parallel construction? If you needed parallel construction for your evidence to not be thrown out of court, then if the story of how you obtained it isn't plausible, it seems likely that it'll get thrown out anyways.
Absolutely. But it's kind of a double-bind sort of situation. If it seems potentially implausible, you can say it smells like a cover story diversion. If it seems plausible, you can say it could be a believable-sounding cover story diversion that's tricked the naive masses.
It's similar to the logic serial conspiracy theorists use; counter-claims are easily dismissed as "that's what they want you to think" / "of course they'd do that". The onus is on the claim-maker to provide evidence of possible deceit.
It's delusional to completely outsource the assessment of plausibility, it's a fast track to dictatorship. It's on each of us to assess how much faith to hold in such claims. Otherwise we fall into the trap of believing the powers whatever they do.
- Look, that show trial in the USSR (or Nazi Germany, etc) has concluded with the confessions of guilt from all the accused.
- But there was no solid evidence presented, there is quite some ground to believe they were forced to confess under tortures.
- *If they needed* tortures for the confessions in the court, *then if their story isn't plausible, it seems likely that it'll get thrown out anyways.*
- ???
Yeah, I should've said "parallel construction / source protection / cover story". Parallel construction implies hiding an illicit and/or unethical technique (like warrantless NSA collection methods), but it could also be done to protect a valid information source, like a confidential informant.
>Still, I wanted to get this out there: isn't the claimed story being plausible a pretty important part of parallel construction? If you needed parallel construction for your evidence to not be thrown out of court, then if the story of how you obtained it isn't plausible, it seems likely that it'll get thrown out anyways.
Absolutely. But it's kind of a double-bind sort of situation. If it seems potentially implausible, you can say it smells like a cover story diversion. If it seems plausible, you can say it could be a believable-sounding cover story diversion that's tricked the naive masses.
It's similar to the logic serial conspiracy theorists use; counter-claims are easily dismissed as "that's what they want you to think" / "of course they'd do that". The onus is on the claim-maker to provide evidence of possible deceit.