No Trace Project > Threat Library > Techniques > Biased interpretation of evidence
Biased interpretation of evidence is the practice of interpreting evidence in favor of a particular point of view.
Biased interpretation of evidence is the standard practice of modern justice systems which tend to favor the rich and powerful and discriminate against anarchists and other rebels. Evidence is interpreted with bias at all levels: when it is collected by investigators, when it is presented by prosecutors, and when it is considered by judges. Any information (even mundane information) can be woven into a narrative to fit the purposes of an investigation.
Used in tactics: Incrimination
| Name | Description |
|---|
| Digital best practices | You can follow digital best practices to limit the information an adversary has about you, and therefore limit the information they can interpret in a biased way.
|
| Need-to-know principle | You can apply the need-to-know principle to limit the information an adversary has about you, and therefore limit the information they can interpret in a biased way.
|
| Name | Description |
|---|
| December 8 case | The case was characterized by a lack of evidence that the defendants were planning a specific attack, and relied instead on interpretation of circumstantial evidence. Examples of this interpretation include:
- Libre Flot gained combat experience in Rojava, which was interpreted as an attempt to gain experience in order to carry out attacks in France.
- Libre Flot stole fertilizer from a store, intending to use it to create small explosives. The theft was interpreted as an attempt to obtain fertilizer without leaving traces.
- On two occasions, some of the defendants created small explosives from household or agricultural products, and detonated them in isolated areas where the explosions would not damage anything, which was interpreted as tests for possible future attacks (despite the defendants' claims that they were just doing it for fun).
- Some of the defendants participated in airsoft games, which were intepreted as paramilitary trainings.
- Handwritten notes of one of the defendants contained terms and phrases such as “weapons”, “recruitment”, “cleaning DNA”, “incendiary device” and “are we ready for a comrade to be wounded or killed?”, which were interpreted as indicative that the defendant was preparing an attack in France (despite the defendant's claims that the notes were about either airsoft or Rojava).
- In private conversations, some of the defendants made light-hearted, boasting comments such as “I want to burn all the banks, all the cops” and “if a police officer was on ground, honestly I would finish him off”, which were interpreted as indicative of violent intentions.
- The defendants used secure digital communication tools, which was interpreted as indicative of “clandestine behavior”.
|
