mattj
blatant Nintendo fanboy
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/12/barry-beach-released-montana.html
Anyone who has read my posts knows that I generally do not favor conspiracy theories.
I've been a huge fan of reality crime shows for a few years now. I've watched all 10 seasons of First 48 and continue to watch various other reality crime shows on Netflix and elsewhere. I think its seeing justice prevail and criminals get what they deserve that draws me the most.
One thing I always used to love to see was when the Police Interrogator would press and press and press someone who they had solid evidence on until they finally, (head in hands), confessed to their crimes. My wife and I used to laugh at how on First 48, down in Miami they had a veteran interrogator who's first name was literally Confessor. The police finally had the final piece of the puzzle. They now had everything they needed to win the jury over. Justice would be served.
Recently I was watching a show called Real Interrogations on Netflix. In Season 1 Episode 3 the body of a young girl was found burning by the side of the road. After identifying her they spoke to people she knew and determined she had been at a party the evening before. Long story short, a while later they ended up coming to the conclusion that a certain young man was to blame. They spoke to his father before picking him up to take him to the police station to interrogate him and his father seemed very confused. He said that his son was not even in the United States during the time of the murder. Regardless, the police took him to the station to see what he knew.
Surprisingly, they got him to sign a confession, charged him with first degree murder, arrested him and put him in jail pending further investigation.
Couple of problems though.
Firstly, his story didn't match most of the details of the crime. It was the wrong place and the wrong time. He was naming people who were already ruled out. He didn't even get the means of murder right.
Secondly, as his father had said, he was not in the United States at the time of that murder. Just as he had said, his father soon produced several forms of documentation proving he had been in Venezuela for a period of weeks during that time.
He was not involved in any way.
Honestly, this kind of shocked me. What on EARTH could compel that crazy kid to say "Yeah I was there. I was involved." When he so obviously wasn't?
Turns out he had been screamed at, threatened, badgered, and lied to for hours and hours in the interrogation room. He had been silly and had made some mistakes when telling the interrogators where he had been and where he was going, but even just watching the parts of the interview they showed you could tell that had more to do with the fact that English was not his first language than anything else. As soon as the police saw the slightest discrepancy in his story, with no evidence against him whatsoever, and in fact testimony to his innocence, they held him in that interrogation room and pushed and pushed and pushed for hours and hours until he finally broke and said exactly what they wanted to hear, partly out of exhaustion and partly out of fear of their threats.
This really made me think twice about all those reality crime shows. All the times I had felt such satisfaction at seeing the "bad guy" confess to his crimes.
Soon after that, I queue'd up a Frontline documentary called The Released. It was about a group of 4 innocent men who all were bullied over hours and hours of soul crushing interrogation by a (later to be convicted of criminal wrongdoing involving interrogations he had conducted) police interrogator until they confessed to a crime they did not commit. They screamed at them. They lied to them, telling them that they had evidence against them when they did not and that telling them that they had failed polygraph tests when they had in fact passed them. They threatened them, saying that because they had so much evidence against each of them, they would undoubtedly face execution if they did not stop "lying" and confess to the crime. Finally, each of them broke and began to tell the police whatever they wanted to hear, often literally being coached in what to say when recording and writing their confessions. Then, without a single shred of physical evidence pointing to their guilt, the prosecuting attorney actually convinced 4 separate juries, based mostly on their coerced confessions, to send each of those men to jail. They even actually caught the guy who did it. His DNA matched. And he even said "Hey, those guys weren't involved. I did this by myself." And they all still went to jail and had to serve their entire sentences. You should really look it up. It does a great job of showing how shocking this abuse can be and just how horribly it can ruin so many lives.
TL;DR
Today I read the story quoted atop in the news. It really got me thinking.
I'm asking myself all of these questions. What do you think? I'd especially appreciate the insight of anyone with legal knowledge.
Anyone who has read my posts knows that I generally do not favor conspiracy theories.
I've been a huge fan of reality crime shows for a few years now. I've watched all 10 seasons of First 48 and continue to watch various other reality crime shows on Netflix and elsewhere. I think its seeing justice prevail and criminals get what they deserve that draws me the most.
One thing I always used to love to see was when the Police Interrogator would press and press and press someone who they had solid evidence on until they finally, (head in hands), confessed to their crimes. My wife and I used to laugh at how on First 48, down in Miami they had a veteran interrogator who's first name was literally Confessor. The police finally had the final piece of the puzzle. They now had everything they needed to win the jury over. Justice would be served.
Recently I was watching a show called Real Interrogations on Netflix. In Season 1 Episode 3 the body of a young girl was found burning by the side of the road. After identifying her they spoke to people she knew and determined she had been at a party the evening before. Long story short, a while later they ended up coming to the conclusion that a certain young man was to blame. They spoke to his father before picking him up to take him to the police station to interrogate him and his father seemed very confused. He said that his son was not even in the United States during the time of the murder. Regardless, the police took him to the station to see what he knew.
Surprisingly, they got him to sign a confession, charged him with first degree murder, arrested him and put him in jail pending further investigation.
Couple of problems though.
Firstly, his story didn't match most of the details of the crime. It was the wrong place and the wrong time. He was naming people who were already ruled out. He didn't even get the means of murder right.
Secondly, as his father had said, he was not in the United States at the time of that murder. Just as he had said, his father soon produced several forms of documentation proving he had been in Venezuela for a period of weeks during that time.
He was not involved in any way.
Honestly, this kind of shocked me. What on EARTH could compel that crazy kid to say "Yeah I was there. I was involved." When he so obviously wasn't?
Turns out he had been screamed at, threatened, badgered, and lied to for hours and hours in the interrogation room. He had been silly and had made some mistakes when telling the interrogators where he had been and where he was going, but even just watching the parts of the interview they showed you could tell that had more to do with the fact that English was not his first language than anything else. As soon as the police saw the slightest discrepancy in his story, with no evidence against him whatsoever, and in fact testimony to his innocence, they held him in that interrogation room and pushed and pushed and pushed for hours and hours until he finally broke and said exactly what they wanted to hear, partly out of exhaustion and partly out of fear of their threats.
This really made me think twice about all those reality crime shows. All the times I had felt such satisfaction at seeing the "bad guy" confess to his crimes.
Soon after that, I queue'd up a Frontline documentary called The Released. It was about a group of 4 innocent men who all were bullied over hours and hours of soul crushing interrogation by a (later to be convicted of criminal wrongdoing involving interrogations he had conducted) police interrogator until they confessed to a crime they did not commit. They screamed at them. They lied to them, telling them that they had evidence against them when they did not and that telling them that they had failed polygraph tests when they had in fact passed them. They threatened them, saying that because they had so much evidence against each of them, they would undoubtedly face execution if they did not stop "lying" and confess to the crime. Finally, each of them broke and began to tell the police whatever they wanted to hear, often literally being coached in what to say when recording and writing their confessions. Then, without a single shred of physical evidence pointing to their guilt, the prosecuting attorney actually convinced 4 separate juries, based mostly on their coerced confessions, to send each of those men to jail. They even actually caught the guy who did it. His DNA matched. And he even said "Hey, those guys weren't involved. I did this by myself." And they all still went to jail and had to serve their entire sentences. You should really look it up. It does a great job of showing how shocking this abuse can be and just how horribly it can ruin so many lives.
TL;DR
Today I read the story quoted atop in the news. It really got me thinking.
- At what point does a police interrogation become an inquisition?
- The lead investigator in that episode of Real Interrogations said point blank to the camera "Sometimes we have to tell a lie to get the truth." Is that ever justifiable?
- What limits on police and protections for citizens should be in place to protect innocent citizens?
- Are we still really innocent until proven guilty or are we guilty until we convince interrogators of our innocence?
- Should juries be able to convict people based solely on (possibly coerced) confessions with literally not one shred of evidence to back up the prosecution's claims? Shouldn't there be some kind of requirement of some amount of physical evidence?
- Should police be able to lock people up indefinitely without any physical evidence in their favor?
- In light of these and so many more abuses, should confessions even be considered a valid form of evidence anymore?
I'm asking myself all of these questions. What do you think? I'd especially appreciate the insight of anyone with legal knowledge.
