Coerced "confession."


PDA






ravinraven
August 1, 2005, 02:23 AM
I was just watching the bit on FOX about the Illinois Dad who was just let out of jail. He'd been in jail about a year after "confessing" to the murder of his three-year-old daughter. The "confession" was forced out of him by police/prosecuters. DNA cleared him.

This seems to be a trend in Illinois. Anybody have any information on the details of this coercion? Is anyone writing a book about this crap?

rr

If you enjoyed reading about "Coerced "confession."" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
beerslurpy
August 1, 2005, 02:32 AM
How does crap like this happen anymore? A year in jail with no trial and no lawyer? We criticize the Chinese for doing ???? half as bad as this.

Every cop and govt attorney who was involved in this should be lined up against the wall and shot. Things like this should produce rapid and enthusiastic whistle blowing, not pats on the back for getting a confession from an innocent man.

bogie
August 1, 2005, 10:20 AM
Good cop, bad cop, sign this and you can go home.

Graystar
August 1, 2005, 10:26 AM
I'd have to see the details, but probably another victim of Miranda. I swear that damn Miranda ruling has to be one of the biggest perpetrators of rights violation to come out of the court.

Pilgrim
August 1, 2005, 11:24 AM
I'd have to see the details, but probably another victim of Miranda. I swear that damn Miranda ruling has to be one of the biggest perpetrators of rights violation to come out of the court.
:what: ????

Pilgrim

CentralTexas
August 1, 2005, 11:36 AM
let prosecuters get a pass from being charged or sued in most cases and they get the jobs by being elected this will continue....
CT

JohnBT
August 1, 2005, 11:56 AM
Lots of info available with Google. One report says he spent 6 of the "12 hours" with his wife - not being questioned. Of course, there is the small matter of why they sat on the untested DNA samples for nearly a year. Probably to save money since he'd already 'fessed up. JT

Here's one early report:

"Fox was questioned by police for about 12 hours Tuesday. Authorities say that during the questioning, Fox confessed on videotape to the killing.

On Thursday, the Will County sheriff said Fox claims the girl's death was an accident.

Sheriff Paul Kaupas said Fox told investigators that his daughter Riley died when he accidentally hit her with a bathroom door at their Wilmington home. The sheriff said Fox claims he panicked and that he assaulted her and dumped her body to make the death look like an abduction.

Riley Fox was reported missing June 6. Her father told authorities he woke up that morning and couldn't find her in the family's home.

A pair of hikers discovered the girl's body hours later in a creek four miles from the home.

Investigators said that Fox picked up his two children at their grandmother's house around 12:30 a.m. on June 6. Their mother, Melissa, was in Chicago for the Avon Breast Cancer Walk. Once home, police say the father put his son, Tyler, in the front room of the home and took Riley to a back bedroom, where he allegedly sexually assaulted her. Then, police say, Fox duct-taped her mouth and hands. Bruises on her wrists indicated a struggle. Fox then allegedly put Riley in the back seat of the family car and drove several miles to a creek, where he placed her in the water.

"The forensic investigation revealed that Riley Fox was alive at the time she entered the creek. Additionally, the autopsy revealed that Riley Fox suffered non-lethal head injuries, and that a sexual assault had taken place," said Patrick O'Neill, the Will County coroner. "Duct tape was found over Riley's mouth, and a substance consistent with duct tape was found on her forearms.""

KriegHund
August 1, 2005, 12:02 PM
"How does crap like this happen anymore"

Very easily actually. Many police are overzealous about getting scum off the streets. Many people who claim innocence really are.

Especially younger suspects.

I forget the crime but their was a documentary on TLC about some 80's murder-

They left the teen 4 days without food and with limited water, and no bathroom breaks.

Sounds like a violation of his rights today. And police wonder why many times citizens turn away and support the suspect. When you have a police shooting a 12 year old boy every other weekend it makes me pissed off frankly.

It should be mentioned that ALOT of the police are truely good men and women. Its just that the bad ones stand out alot more. And its the bad ones that turn us away.

pcf
August 1, 2005, 12:03 PM
"Speedy trial" has different meanings in different locations. Sometimes it may take four months for a felony to get to trial, sometimes it may take two years.

If you can't make bail or no bail is set, you go to prison while you wait.

Coerced confessions are nothing new in the land of Illinois.

Graystar
August 1, 2005, 12:05 PM
????The Miranda ruling has been the cause of many innocent people going to jail because their coerced confessions were upheld simply because the accused had been read his rights. On the flip side, many victimsí rights have been violated when confessed perpetrators are let go because there was some problem with reading the Miranda rights.

The Miranda warning is like the NYC searches...canít possibly do what it was intended to do.

The Fifth Amendment protection that Miranda is supposed to address is against compelled testimony. The very definition of a compelled testimony is testimony that is given against a personís will. What good is it to know that you have the right to remain silent when youíre being coerced into confessing?

What the Supreme Court unwittingly did was to place the burden of the protection of our right against compelled testimony upon the shoulders of the accused. Thatís not where it should be. The burden of protecting our rights is on the government.

The Supreme Court essentially invalidated the concept of compelled testimony. Now, all testimony given after the reading of Miranda rights is considered voluntary, whether or not false promises were made or a gun was held to your head. Apparently, youíre suppose to allow yourself to be killed before confessing.

Cesiumsponge
August 1, 2005, 12:48 PM
How does crap like this happen anymore? A year in jail with no trial and no lawyer? We criticize the Chinese for doing ???? half as bad as this.

The whole good cop, bad cop, if you confess we'll give you a light slap and a bottle of champagne thing...turn around they bluffed and you get no breaks.
Its a situation when bad TV and movie scripts do happen from time to time.

One that pops into my mind is the homeless man that got jailed for 8 months because a group of pre-teen girls claimed they were being stalked and molested. The guy served 8 months in prison under 7 felony and mis. counts including child molestation and assault before the stupid kids came forward and told them it was a bogus story. So much for requiring pesky things like "proof".

Every few years, you hear about a guy on death row or in prison being freed due to "new DNA evidence". Sucks that they take away a large chunk of an innocent man's life and he can do little about it afterwards. Another situation that pops up often is the issue of rape...the most recently famous case being Kobe Bryant. A man with less fame and money would be serving a prison term right now.

pax
August 1, 2005, 12:56 PM
And that, right there, is an argument against the death penalty, even in the most heinous cases.

No, I don't have a solution. I just admire the problem.

pax

I was court-martialed in my absence, and sentenced to death in my absence, so I said they could shoot me in my absence. -- Brendan F. Behan

Cesiumsponge
August 1, 2005, 01:05 PM
And that, right there, is an argument against the death penalty...
I'm pro death penalty as a punishment. Some people need to be turned into fertilizer.

Though, how people get assigned that punishment is a system that is SNAFU. I know there are innocent men and women on death row thanks to a myriad of less-than-fair techniques prosecutors and police might indulge in, or if the defendant isn't a rich and famous individual. Catch 22 for me.

pax
August 1, 2005, 01:13 PM
I'm pro death penalty as a punishment. Some people need to be turned into fertilizer.
Yup. Like a man who would sexually assault and then murder his own three-year-old daughter. That kind of person.

The problem is, how many innocent people are you willing to accept being murdered by the state? 1 out of 10 people on death row? 1 out of 100? 1 out of 1000? out of 10,000?

There's no such thing as perfection. So where is your line?

pax

El Tejon
August 1, 2005, 01:18 PM
Welcome to the world of the tilecrawler. :scrutiny: :uhoh:

Sometimes the po-po "grab the bit" and going running off in the wrong direction. Cannot believe that people do not lawyer up, but people who are innocent want to be seen as the good guy and unfortunately cooperate with the police.

Sindawe
August 1, 2005, 01:19 PM
There's no such thing as perfection. So where is your line? How about DNA evidence conclusively linking the perpetrator with the crime? This will mean that some of the truly guilty will go free, but personally I find that far more palatable than the truly innocent being punished.

RevDisk
August 1, 2005, 01:35 PM
Sometimes the po-po "grab the bit" and going running off in the wrong direction. Cannot believe that people do not lawyer up, but people who are innocent want to be seen as the good guy and unfortunately cooperate with the police.

Good citizens only need to say "Lawyer please". They can still cooperate with the police, through their lawyer. Bit expensive, but cheaper than jail.

The road to Hades is paved with good intentions, and all that.

JohnBT
August 1, 2005, 01:40 PM
"The problem is, how many innocent people are you willing to accept being murdered by the state?"

No one should be put in prison because mistakes are made. How many innocent people are you willing to accept being jailed by the state? ;)

John

Vang
August 1, 2005, 02:18 PM
Being jailed is something you can be compensated for through a lawsuit. Once you're dead, you're dead.

CAnnoneer
August 1, 2005, 02:22 PM
I think honest mistakes are not necessarily the whole problem.

Prosecutors are under a lot of pressure to convict. By construction, they are fighting an uphill battle due to this little philosophical bequest from Roman law saying that "it is better that five guilty go free than one innocent be punished." This gives them the idea that anything they can get away with is fair game, because the lawyers on the other side certainly pull the same. Thus the system is about playing word twister with the letter of the law rather than about searching for the objective truth and meting justice accordingly.

On top of that, the promotions are based on which prosecutor bagged whom, so any careerist in the system has an incredible incentive to bag as many and as big a fish as possible. Many go as far as obstinately continuing trials even when they themselves are convinced the accused is innocent. The reason is, if they drag it enough, apply enough pressure, run enough lawyer expenses, maybe the accused will buckle and make a deal. If he/she does not, and gets acquitted by the jury, the prosecutors can always throw their hands in the air and blame the stupidity of the jury. It costs them nothing; it costs us the taxpayers and potential future innocent accused a whole lot.

My hope for fixing the system is that with the introduction of more advanced, more reliable technology, e.g. DNA tests at crime scene, establishing guilt would be increasingly a question of objective technology rather than subjective word games.

roo_ster
August 1, 2005, 02:25 PM
The problem is, how many innocent people are you willing to accept being murdered by the state?

No one should be put in prison because mistakes are made. How many innocent people are you willing to accept being jailed by the state?

As a rule, we should do our darndest to insure no innocent men get executed.

We must acknoledge that people and their institutions are not perfect. Insisting on perfection is a recipie for inaction and anarchy.

The old saw about "letting 10 guilty men go free rather than one innocent man be exeucted" does not hold water. The vast majority of those on death row are career criminals. The odds are that they will kill again. So, letting ten guilty men go free rather than execuing the one innocent man...is sentencing another 5-7 innocent men to death by the hands of the guilty.

I used to be wholly against giving gov't the power to execute its citizens. I still have some serious reservations, but the advent of DNA testing makes me more, rather than less, confident that contemporary death sentences are just.

Telperion
August 1, 2005, 02:39 PM
Good citizens only need to say "Lawyer please". They can still cooperate with the police, through their lawyer. Bit expensive, but cheaper than jail.Unfortunately, most citizens have been indoctrinated by the idiot box that the po-po are always right, and that anyone who asks for a lawyer is guilty or has something to hide (cue ominous music). ;)

jnojr
August 1, 2005, 03:13 PM
Every cop and govt attorney who was involved in this should be lined up against the wall and shot.

Without a trial? ;)

carebear
August 1, 2005, 03:40 PM
We'll have a nice fair trial......











And then we'll shoot 'em. ;)

RevDisk
August 1, 2005, 03:42 PM
Unfortunately, most citizens have been indoctrinated by the idiot box that the po-po are always right, and that anyone who asks for a lawyer is guilty or has something to hide (cue ominous music).

Heh. I'd rather look guilty or look like I have something to hide than be a complete idiot. Ask any cop or DA how many folks talk themselves into a jail cell.

Fletchette
August 1, 2005, 03:44 PM
Moral of the story, do not say anything if you are arrested/detained/minding your own business to a police officer without a lawyer.

...Well, maybe also "I do not consent to being searched" - then call your lawyer.

P.S. I cannot imagine this man's anguish after having lost his daughter and reputation. Her murderer is still out there, and the police have let the trail go cold by harassing te wrong person. That is the other side of improper interrogations.

CAS700850
August 1, 2005, 03:56 PM
There was a case in central Ohio that just ended a little while back. Guy was arrested for murder, confessed, and gave some details about the crime that weren't in the paper. Defense attorney asked for DNA exam of the murder weapon. Turns out there were two samples of human blood, and neither belonged to the Defendant. Investigation was re-opened, and they found where the victim's credit cards had been used two and three days after her death, while the Defendnat was in jail for the murder. They eventually found the match for the DNA, tied him to the credit card use, and convicted him of the murder. What was interesting was that the Chief of Police testified on behalf of the second Defendant, standing behind his interview of the first Defendant taht got the confession.

Standing Wolf
August 1, 2005, 10:04 PM
What the Supreme Court unwittingly did was to place the burden of the protection of our right against compelled testimony upon the shoulders of the accused. Thatís not where it should be. The burden of protecting our rights is on the government.

Yep. Well said.

Hypnogator
August 1, 2005, 10:28 PM
...the most recently famous case being Kobe Bryant. A man with less fame and money would be serving a prison term right now.
More to the point, rich and famous murderers and rapists walk among us. :fire: :cuss: :banghead:

Don Gwinn
August 1, 2005, 10:31 PM
Someone asked why the cops "sat on DNA samples for six months."

Well, I don't know, but I can make a suggestion: you see, the Illinois State Police Lab had a backlog much longer than that not so long ago. The state threw some extra money at the lab and brought in some private contractors (I think) to clear the backlog, and they just announced that the backlog has been eliminated a few weeks ago. The time frame seems to match up.

In other words, he's lucky the ISP finally decided they needed to clear that backlog, or he might still be in jail. :eek:

beerslurpy
August 1, 2005, 10:37 PM
Being jailed is something you can be compensated for through a lawsuit. Once you're dead, you're dead.

No, this is this whole problem. The government has made itself immune from lawsuits over this sort of thing. You can be locked in jail for 30 years and then they realize you're innocent and you still cant get a penny from them even though they took the best years of your life and you no longer have any family or friends left in the world. It has happened a lot of times and is the rule rather than the exception.

This sort of "lesser tyranny" comes with the territory of having an established government and a peaceful and prosperous country. When there are no real problems that you can make a name by solving, pawns are sacrificed for this purpose. And there will always be pawns at the bottom of society. A 25 percent rate of complete illiteracy assures that the net never comes up empty.

Anyone else remember how Janet Reno went around to all the daycare centers and used some nazi (and I do not use this word lightly) interrogation tactics to get people to confess (through the use of torture and hypnosis). Most of her victims were finally freed after serving multi-year portions of their sentences. Some are still rotting in jail with multi century sentences for child molestation. Which wouldnt be a big deal except they are obviously innocent men.

Unfortunately the only way to get rid of it is often to bring the whole mess crashing down. Which usually causes even worse problems.

Hypnogator
August 1, 2005, 11:05 PM
Anyone else remember how Janet Reno went around to all the daycare centers and used some nazi (and I do not use this word lightly) interrogation tactics to get people to confess (through the use of torture and hypnosis).

Really? She personally went around to the thousands and thousands of daycare centers and personally hypnotized and tortured each and every daycare worker? :what: How did she ever find time to attack our 2nd Amendment rights? The woman's phenominal! We need to put her in charge of the hunt for Osama Bin Laden post haste! :evil: :evil: :evil:

beerslurpy
August 2, 2005, 12:03 AM
No, it was mostly the miami area. She did personally interrogate some of the prisoners I've heard. She failed horribly in her first few attempts to convict people because the children werent credible witnesses and it was too easy for the defense to focus on a single witness and find exculpatory evidence.

Finally she find that having a ton of uncredible child witnesses actually cancels out the uncredibility if an expert testifies that children can never make up the truth. Once she got it down to a routine it was a matter of time before people started getting locked up for long periods of time. Some have had their convictions overturned, some have not.

Its entirely true. This was in the late 80s early 90s, just before clinton.

carebear
August 2, 2005, 12:36 AM
Ah yes...

"Children don't lie."

Where was that bit of truth when my father was forcibly extracting confessions in the wood shed? :evil:

No_Brakes23
August 2, 2005, 05:20 AM
I just don't understand what you can do to a father to make him admit to beating, raping and drowning his own daughter.

I understand that everyone cracks under torture, but are we really suggesting the boys in blue put 'tricity to his nads?

Seriously, within reason, what on earth would make a father say that?

CAS700850
August 2, 2005, 10:16 AM
I wonder that myself, but without actually seeing exactly what he said, we're left to wonder what he actually "confessed" to. Perhaps he made an incriminating statement or two without actually coming out and saying "I did it." What I want to know is what other evidence existed. I doubt that they just picked the father and essentially made him the tergat of the investigation from the first moment without something else pointing at him.

DRZinn
August 2, 2005, 10:26 AM
And that, right there, is an argument against the death penalty, even in the most heinous cases.That's the realization I've come to, as well. Morally, philosophically, I'm all for it. But until we stop convicting innocent people of capital offenses, it's just not right.

My proposal for the compensation of the wrongly convicted is this: A salary shall be paid equal to the amount of money earned by the plaintiff in the year prior to his conviction, plus 25% the first year incarcerated, plus 10 percent every year after that. The minimum salary for any single year shall be $50,000.

Don Gwinn
August 2, 2005, 01:02 PM
. . . . and it's not as hard as you might think. In the most egregious and famous case, she convinced the wife in a husband-and-wife pair of daycare operators that her husband had forced her to help in all sorts of bizarre and improbable ritual abuses. The wife was subjected to nude solitary confinement and worse--essentially, the same sort of thing we use at Guantanamo and that a lot of Reno's best political friends say constitute torture.

The couple in question was the Fusters. The wife's name was Ileana. You can google it yourself (or Teoma, or whatever.) Here are a few links to get you started:
Quick and dirty overview:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/ARTICLES/RENO.html

Detailed overview of the case:
http://www.oranous.com/innocence/FrankFuster/factsevents.htm


The "Ritual Satanic Abuse" scandals of the time were quite bizarre, and they sound even more bizarre today, but innocent people ABSOLUTELY got arrested, tried and convicted of incredible (used in the traditional sense) acts of abuse. If you want a much more detailed and well-researched look at a specific case, I suggest Remembering Satan (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679431551/102-1542078-8133750?v=glance).

Here's a good review of the book from Amazon:
"Remembering Satan" is an account of one of the more prominent and tragic cases of alleged child abuse and satanic ritual abuse (SRA). Author Lawrence Wright makes it clear that he does not believe the majority of the allegations, and how could he? What started as "mere" allegations of sexual abuse soon developed into allegations of a widespread satanic cult that included many members of the investigating police force, lawyers, judges, and many others.

The allegations started when Ericka and Julie Ingram accused their father, Paul Ingram, of molesting them. Paul Ingram was a deputy sheriff and deeply religious man in Olympia, Washington. He soon admitted to the allegations and began naming others as participants in all manner of rapes, orgies, and satanic rituals. The problem with the case, though, was that the allegations kept growing. Soon the alleged participants were talking about photographs, sacrifices of animals and human babies, and much more--none of which could be verified by any physical evidence. Further, the stories were often contradictory or patently false.

Wright attempts to combine in a relatively slim volume the successful prosecution of Paul Ingram (who confessed), the destruction of a family and the lives of many others, and the hysteria surrounding the search for satanic cults. He locates these events within the larger context of repressed memories and the television talk-show dominated landscape of 1980s' America. There are problems in this approach as the subject matter seems to be one that cannot be captured in the book's approximately 200 pages, but Wright does an extraordinary job in presenting the material he has chosen to include.

For those who have trouble crediting the outlandish claims of those who advocate widespread SRA, this book should be a fascinating read. For those who find themselves on the other side of the fence and believe fully in the validity of repressed memories, "Remembering Satan" will probably seem to be a slap in the face or just another part of the conspiracy. Either way, the Ingram case itself, which is the focus of this book, is a fascinating study in a modern-day witch hunt and the credulity of the investigators--and the accused.

The most important things to take away from Remembering Satan about Ritual Satanic Abuse/Recovered Memory Therapy are:

"Torture" is really not necessary; recovered memory therapists are capable of helping their subjects create any memory, no matter how bizarre. The subject then believes the memory absolutely even if it contradicts clear evidence.
"Repressed memories" aren't only applied to "victims." By the time they were done working Ingram over, he absolutely believed in his own guilt. He found "confessing his crimes" a huge relief and it was even a bigger relief to name all his "co-conspirators" and make even wilder allegations about them. Before he was done, he had most of his sheriff's office and a large number of his community under suspicion.
The severity of the charges, NOT the nature of the evidence, is what matters in these cases. In the Remembering Satan case, Ingram and 40-50 others were alleged to have murdered hundreds of infants, forced the children to do despicable acts with elephants, LEVITATED BY MAGIC . . . . . and this was all brushed off in the rush to convict somebody, anybody, for the children.

carebear
August 2, 2005, 01:05 PM
Mental browbeating in an enclosed space when you can't move or speak unless spoken to, when the only things you're allowed to say have to agree in some way with what the controllers want you to say? To a father who actually IS feeling guilty since he "should have been able to keep her safe"?

A good interrogator doesn't have to lay a hand on you. Once they have a hook of guilt, any guilt, to get you to first break on the little things you'll eventually start going along with the program.

That's why physical torture isn't necessary, per LEO and military manuals. It can actually be counter-productive.

It's quite the science and can be horribly misused.

Bruce H
August 2, 2005, 01:15 PM
The answer is real simple. If a prosecutor omits evidence or otherwise obtains a conviction with shady dealings the prosecutor serves the same amount of time as the convicted. If it is a death penalty case and the defendant is later found innocent after the sentance is carried out the prosecutor gets the same.

buzz_knox
August 2, 2005, 01:27 PM
The problem is, how many innocent people are you willing to accept being murdered by the state? 1 out of 10 people on death row? 1 out of 100? 1 out of 1000? out of 10,000?

How many innocent people are we willing to accept being put in a pen for years on end, to be raped repeatedly, to have their lives destroyed? Where is the line?

The argument against the death penalty works just as well against prison itself. You CANNOT compensate someone enough to make up for being convicted and tortured for years.

Getting the death sentence is your best bet if you're innocent but wrongly convicted. You'll be segregated from general population, have far more appeal opportunities, and you'll get all the support you need from the anti-death penalty groups (who strangely don't seem to worry or invest their time and resources in freeing innocent people from prison who are serving life sentences or less).

Personally, the best bet is to everyone involved criminally liable if an innocent person is wrongly convicted based on negligence or intentional misrepresentations. It's possible to get a wrongful conviction without such action (bad defense counsel, problems caused by the defendant's own acts or omissions), but it's hard. Of course, such liability will never happen because it will destroy the judicial system. No one will want to get involved at any level.

Kurush
August 2, 2005, 01:51 PM
She personally went around to the thousands and thousands of daycare centers and personally hypnotized and tortured each and every daycare worker?
Rent the movie "Capturing the Friedmans". Once you're done :barf:ing you'll have your answer.

How did she ever find time to attack our 2nd Amendment rights?She was witchhunting as FL AG, she roasted kids as US AG.

buzz_knox
August 2, 2005, 02:15 PM
I understand that everyone cracks under torture, but are we really suggesting the boys in blue put 'tricity to his nads?

Don't need to. Just keep repeating "if you sign/say this, you can go home." Do that for a few hours straight, and it takes a very strong person to hold out. Combine that with the trauma of a parent having lost a child and the guilt/feelings of failure that automatically go with it, and you've got your confession.

CAS700850
August 2, 2005, 02:20 PM
And any worthwhile prosecutor or defense attorney will destroy a case based upon confession alone, especially one without corrobrative facts, absent other evidence to support the confession. Which again makes me wonder what else was involved here...

THat's also why I like taped interviews. If you can hear the person's voice, you can tell a lot about the nature of the interview/interrogation.

buzz_knox
August 2, 2005, 02:28 PM
Agreed on the taped confessions. Just like e-mail, you loose so much from not being able to hear the questions and answers.

CAS700850
August 2, 2005, 02:31 PM
And, from the prosecutor's side of the coin, you gain so much by being able to play a good tape for the jury. Things like tone of voice, expressions, and even anger, are conveyed by the tape in ways no other testimony can match. Video can be even better.

Vang
August 2, 2005, 03:33 PM
beerslurpy, I am aware of the horrendous state of compensation for those falsely imprisoned. I was not speaking of how it is today, but how it could be. We could change the system to more highly compensate those falsely imprisoned, but we could never bring people back from the dead.

RevDisk
August 2, 2005, 03:36 PM
The "Ritual Satanic Abuse" scandals of the time were quite bizarre, and they sound even more bizarre today, but innocent people ABSOLUTELY got arrested, tried and convicted of incredible (used in the traditional sense) acts of abuse. If you want a much more detailed and well-researched look at a specific case, I suggest Remembering Satan.

Yea, the 'recovered memory' shrinks screwed up more than a few folks.

But I'd like to point out there have been more than a few cases were child molesters pretended to be Satanists in order to make the stories told by the victims so outlandish, no jury would buy it.


Mental browbeating in an enclosed space when you can't move or speak unless spoken to, when the only things you're allowed to say have to agree in some way with what the controllers want you to say? To a father who actually IS feeling guilty since he "should have been able to keep her safe"?

A good interrogator doesn't have to lay a hand on you. Once they have a hook of guilt, any guilt, to get you to first break on the little things you'll eventually start going along with the program.

That's why physical torture isn't necessary, per LEO and military manuals. It can actually be counter-productive.

Yep. A good interrogator can crack a detainee by just smiling and talking, also by controlling the environment.

Of course, one can crack a not so good police interrogator by singing "Hundred Bottles of Beer on the Wall" or "Badger, Badger, Badger, MUSHROOM, MUSHROOM!" for a few hours. :neener:

(I fully deny doing that, BTW.)

carebear
August 2, 2005, 03:42 PM
Didja point behind them when you yelled "snake"? :evil:

Waitone
August 2, 2005, 03:45 PM
Lemme see if I got it right

--Because we don't have a perfect system of determining guilt we should therefore not implement extreme punishment? Is that it??

--Where else in human endeavour do we demand absolute perfection or we just don't do it?

--If we can say it is an injustice to execute someone wrongly, can we not also say to not execute someone deserving execution to be an injustice as well?

RevDisk
August 2, 2005, 03:46 PM
Didja point behind them when you yelled "snake"?

Uh, not that I'd EVER even consider doing such a thing, and I deny any accusations of biased, slanderous allegations of doing so, but na. Staring at them right in the eye and not twitching a muscle is much more effective in the "weirding out" department.

Tho it might be tempting to do the badger dance...

griz
August 2, 2005, 04:49 PM
Here is another case (http://www.justicedenied.org/derecktice.htm) that fits. It's from the father of one of the men who is in prison for a crime the evidence says he didn't do.

A young girl was raped and murdered. Of the eight suspects, most "confessed" and were charged. Several plea bargined and were found guilty. Only one of them was connected by DNA and he said he did it alone. The officer that did the interrogations has a history of forced confessions and was disiplined (but kept the same job) for one of the mistakes. Virginia has ruled that pleading guilty is proof of guilt, and will not revisit those cases.

I don't know for sure, but it sounds to me like that police department has decided that it's worth locking up a lot of innocent people if agressive interrogations can get lots of confessions.

As to why one would confess when they are innocent, this guy says he was physically afraid of the officer. Others were told they would face the death penalty if they didn't plead guilty.

longrifleman
August 2, 2005, 05:25 PM
--Because we don't have a perfect system of determining guilt we should therefore not implement extreme punishment? Is that it??

Um, not quite. Because we all know that the system is going to make mistakes, we should keep the ability to fix any mistakes we find. What can you do to make it up to an innocent man that has beed executed? Buy him a bigger headstone?

If guilt has been established, with no possibilty of mistake, fry 'em. Otherwise err on the side of caution.

GT
August 2, 2005, 08:45 PM
I read the story about this Fox guy.

http://www.truthinjustice.org/kevin-fox.htm

It was all about him.
Not about catching the guy who raped and killed his daughter.
It was all about how he would only get 3-5 years if he confessed.

He didn't seem to care about who raped and killed his daughter. Apparently he still doesn't. He just seems to be interested in his civil law suit.

It's still all about him.

His narcissism and weakness allowed the real killer a year's head start.

The police are disgusting JBT's of course; once he asked for a lawyer they should have stopped questioning him; but his behaviour not only encouraged them, it validated their efforts.

And he still doesn't seem to be bothered about his daughter.

G

svtruth
August 3, 2005, 07:28 AM
It seems to me that the DA, police et al. overlook (hide) the fact that every innocent imprisoned = bad guy on the loose. Like the Central Park jogger in NYC a few years ago.

If you enjoyed reading about "Coerced "confession."" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!