A severed head, two cops, and the radical future of interrogation

[Firethorn]

...but the victim has no axe wounds and was killed by 37 close range gunshots from multiple 9mm handguns which ballistics can't conclusively say weren't police issued...

Why's Billy even being questioned about such an obvious suicide?

[Perd Hapley]

...but the victim has no axe wounds and was killed by 37 close range gunshots from multiple 9mm handguns which ballistics can't conclusively say weren't police issued...

1. Billy Ray's axing skills are such, that each stroke of his axe looks like 6.1666667 9mm bullet wounds.

2. Everybody knows that it takes much more than 37 9mm to kill a man. Or a fly, for that matter.

[230RN]

fistful said,

I don't think the point of HIG (or of the article) is that it's supposed to make the police perfectly unbiased, or that the police are supposed to pretend they don't already have evidence pointing toward the suspect. If they already know the victim's blood is on Billy Ray's clothes, and Billy Ray's fingerprints are all over the bloody axe, and Billy Ray's girlfriend was videotaped getting freaky with the victim...

Which was part of my mental Tueller excercise going into the interview or interrogation or whatever...

(Me)
"We wouldn't be in this room if you had enough evidence to go to trial.  I'm not confessing to anything in any fishing expedition and I'm not going to give you any information to pursue things further.  So either you go to trial with what you supposedly have, or let me go.  Which is it?"

...and several other sub rosa things that would go through my mind, guilty of something or not guilty.  Zimmerman was an outlying case where he legitimately self-defended, but a vocal subgroup was calling for blood, and a particularly aggressive and unethical DA wanted the same blood.  Well, maybe not so outlying anymore.

I have to laugh when people suggest that clamming up is evidentiary in itself, in a supposedly "objective" fact-finding mission.  Put it this way:  "clamming up" will not result in a confession, false or otherwise.

Anyhow, my "way out in the weeds" comments were all part of the rule of thumb:

Observe, Assess, Adapt, Overcome.

Terry, 230RN

[BlueStarLizzard]

We can go round and round on this subject forever, because what the bone of contention basically comes down to is trust in the police, rather than innocence or guilt.

I'm not sure what the average APS members is so concerned about, under normal circumstances, as I honestly believe the average member is fairly law abiding and would prefer actual criminals who are stupid enough to talk themselves into jail actually go to jail (and not get off on technicalities like the Reid method can produce) and would prefer that the young and dumb not be stressed into false confessions.

I, for one, would certainly prefer being questions in a pleasant room by a polite detective rather than interrogated in a dingy, cold room by an ahole any day of the week, regardless of my guilt/innocence and my choice of how closed mouth I want to be.

[T.O.M.]

We often see around here the debate about contact with law enforcement, and the actions you should take.  Some believe that you should treat every encounter as a potential investigation, and remind you to act accordingly.  Others believe that you should treat an officer like you would any other person, have pleasant small talk in the right setting, and leave it at that.  Me?  After 22 years of working in the system, I don't view an LEO as the enemy.  I know what to do, and more importantly what not to do, to avoid problems with an officer.  That said, if I was ever being interviewed for something where I'm not a witness or a victim, even I'd probably lawyer up, and I am a lawyer.

[RevDisk]

Note the 'may be in trouble' part.  If you're innocent, speaking up early can save you a world of hurt, as seen with Zimmerman.  On the other end you have the sovereign citizens who will get themselves into trouble by not speaking in the most abrasive manner possible when talking would have had them on their way in under 5 minutes.

Okay, all of my responses have been with the presumption that you're actually innocent.

It might be a particularly specific case there.  They didn't have the line space to go with the ones where they determined that their initial suspect was innocent.

Even if you're innocent, doesn't mean you won't be thrown to the wolves for any number of reasons. See Zimmerman. Of course, he is dumb as a post as well as his own worst enemy. Which isn't criminal, though a lot of people think otherwise. Besides besides racial issues, cops may only have you as a suspect and want the case closed. There may be political implications. Maybe local prosecutor wants to make an example or needs a show trial for some reason.

Innocence is only a tactical advantage in our legal system, Firethorn. It usually makes life easier for your lawyer, but it is definitely not a holy cross that'll ward off prosecutors. It impacts the calculation of whether a prosecutor will take you to trial, but numerous other factors may weigh more heavily. Prosecutor is who puts you in jail. Generally not the cops.

Again, for minor things, don't be a moron.  Don't pull "sovereign citizen", don't act like an inbred chimp, always be polite and courteous. If you have no dog in the events or it's minor like a traffic occurrence, just roll with it. For anything major, even if you're innocent, it's best to shut up and let your lawyer speak. You may not get the best possible result, but you're not talking yourself into a prison cell either. And innocence is certainly not always proof against talking yourself into a prison cell. See how often innocent people falsely confess.

[Perd Hapley]

...don't act like an inbred chimp...

You're saying there are times when I should NOT act like an inbred chimp? I may have to rethink my approach to life.

[Balog]

At least in the LAPD case that was the focus of the article, I don't see any difference. The two detectives went to San Antonio convinced that their "person of interest" was the killer, and their entire "interview" was geared toward eliciting incriminatory information or a confession, not neutrally seeking information that might be exculpatory or might lead to other suspects.

The difference is in the likelihood of eliciting false confessions.

[Balog]

We often see around here the debate about contact with law enforcement, and the actions you should take.  Some believe that you should treat every encounter as a potential investigation, and remind you to act accordingly.  Others believe that you should treat an officer like you would any other person, have pleasant small talk in the right setting, and leave it at that.  Me?  After 22 years of working in the system, I don't view an LEO as the enemy.  I know what to do, and more importantly what not to do, to avoid problems with an officer.  That said, if I was ever being interviewed for something where I'm not a witness or a victim, even I'd probably lawyer up, and I am a lawyer.

Bold explains the italics.

[roo_ster]

Bold explains the italics.

Deckard: [getting up to leave] I was quit when I come in here, Bryant, I'm twice as quit now.
Bryant: Stop right where you are! You know the score, pal. You're not cop, you're little people!
[Deckard stops at the door]
Deckard: No choice, huh?
Bryant: [smiles] No choice, pal.

[T.O.M.]

Bold explains the italics.

I know that if I said LEOs aren't the enemy seeking incriminating information on every person they see, I'd be called out on it.  My views are based on my experiences.  That's why I qualified my statement. 

But the key thing is that even with 22 years in, even with a law degree, I'd still ask for counsel if I was a person of interest, or being questioned about anything where (1) I didn't see a crime happen and be giving a witness statement, or (2) I'm not the victim of the crime being investigated.

[MechAg94]

I know that if I said LEOs aren't the enemy seeking incriminating information on every person they see, I'd be called out on it.  My views are based on my experiences.  That's why I qualified my statement. 

But the key thing is that even with 22 years in, even with a law degree, I'd still ask for counsel if I was a person of interest, or being questioned about anything where (1) I didn't see a crime happen and be giving a witness statement, or (2) I'm not the victim of the crime being investigated.

I would agree with that.  It doesn't matter what the nature of the interrogation is.  You can still get tripped up and make conflicting statements or say something innocent to you that the cops will take as evidence of something else.  The article described asking people to recount events then recount the same events backwards.  That makes sense for a witness statement or for getting a suspect to trip over lies, but it can be misused just like anything else if you are not careful.

[KD5NRH]

Again, for minor things, don't be a moron.

So it's OK to be a moron for major things?

don't act like an inbred chimp,

Is this because it will confuse the hell out of cops in certain areas if you're not acting like an inbred chimp, and give you a chance to escape while they're distracted?

"You're not from around here, are you?"
"What gave it away, officer?  More than three teeth or deodorant?"

[seeker_two]

We often see around here the debate about contact with law enforcement, and the actions you should take.  Some believe that you should treat every encounter as a potential investigation, and remind you to act accordingly.  Others believe that you should treat an officer like you would any other person, have pleasant small talk in the right setting, and leave it at that.  Me?  After 22 years of working in the system, I don't view an LEO as the enemy.  I know what to do, and more importantly what not to do, to avoid problems with an officer.  That said, if I was ever being interviewed for something where I'm not a witness or a victim, even I'd probably lawyer up, and I am a lawyer.

If brought in by police for interrogation, I would also lawyer up......primarily to have someone who specializes in working the legal system advising me on what to do.

No disrespect to the LEO's....but they do the same thing.

[Balog]

I know that if I said LEOs aren't the enemy seeking incriminating information on every person they see, I'd be called out on it.  My views are based on my experiences.  That's why I qualified my statement. 

But the key thing is that even with 22 years in, even with a law degree, I'd still ask for counsel if I was a person of interest, or being questioned about anything where (1) I didn't see a crime happen and be giving a witness statement, or (2) I'm not the victim of the crime being investigated.

Wasn't attempting to call you out, and I wasn't even saying that all cops engage in X or Y.

I'm just saying that, positionally, cops (as a group) are the enemy.

[T.O.M.]

Wasn't attempting to call you out, and I wasn't even saying that all cops engage in X or Y.

I'm just saying that, positionally, cops (as a group) are the enemy.

No offense taken.  No worries.  And I understand people see LEOs that way.  Hell, most people see me in my job as the enemy these days.  Some judges seem to make that understandable.

[KD5NRH]

Hell, most people see me in my job as the enemy these days.

More of a willing pawn of the enemy.

[Perd Hapley]

 

[Balog]

I don't have any issue with good prosecutors. I have a problem with the majority of them who are bad, and who face no repercussions for it.

[Hawkmoon]

I know that if I said LEOs aren't the enemy seeking incriminating information on every person they see, I'd be called out on it.  My views are based on my experiences.  That's why I qualified my statement.  

But the key thing is that even with 22 years in, even with a law degree, I'd still ask for counsel if I was a person of interest, or being questioned about anything where (1) I didn't see a crime happen and be giving a witness statement, or (2) I'm not the victim of the crime being investigated.

Remember Richard Jewell.

Many years ago (1973), a young woman named (IIRC) Penny Serra was murdered in a parking garage in New Haven, CT. The flatfoots of the New Haven Police Department somehow convinced themselves that a young man named Anthony Golino, a high school classmate of the young woman, was the killer. But they had no evidence. They pursued Mr. Golino for eleven YEARS, harassing him and basically making his life a living hell. Finally, in 1984, they arrested him and charged him. At which time their case fell apart because his blood type didn't match blood samples recovered from the scene. Golino was released, but New Haven detectives continued to maintain that he was the killer.

In 1999 (26 years later), they got a DNA match -- to someone from another city, and definitely not Anthony Golino. The new suspect was arrested, tried, and convicted.

We didn't have DNA testing in 1973 so maybe the New Haven police wouldn't have found the real killer if they hadn't been so certain that Golino was the killer. But they WERE convinced, with the predictable result that they didn't make any serious effort to look for other suspects or to pursue any evidence that didn't point toward Anthony Golino.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/25/nyregion/dna-leads-to-arrest-in-73-slaying-in-new-haven.html

[230RN]

Even if you're innocent, doesn't mean you won't be thrown to the wolves for any number of reasons. See Zimmerman. Of course, he is dumb as a post as well as his own worst enemy. Which isn't criminal, though a lot of people think otherwise. Besides besides racial issues, cops may only have you as a suspect and want the case closed. There may be political implications. Maybe local prosecutor wants to make an example or needs a show trial for some reason.

Innocence is only a tactical advantage in our legal system, Firethorn. It usually makes life easier for your lawyer, but it is definitely not a holy cross that'll ward off prosecutors. It impacts the calculation of whether a prosecutor will take you to trial, but numerous other factors may weigh more heavily. Prosecutor is who puts you in jail. Generally not the cops.

Again, for minor things, don't be a moron.  Don't pull "sovereign citizen", don't act like an inbred chimp, always be polite and courteous. If you have no dog in the events or it's minor like a traffic occurrence, just roll with it. For anything major, even if you're innocent, it's best to shut up and let your lawyer speak. You may not get the best possible result, but you're not talking yourself into a prison cell either. And innocence is certainly not always proof against talking yourself into a prison cell. See how often innocent people falsely confess.

As I said, it ain't like a traffic officer asking "What did you see when Vehicle A crashed into Vehicle B?"  If you're called in for an "interview," whether it be in a claustrophobic room (Reid) or in the City Park with pretty girls jogging by (HIG), good sense dictates that you regard it as an adversarial situation.

Innocence notwithstanding.

Observe, assess, adapt, overcome.

Terry