I have a recurring dream where I murder someone and bury the body, it's always the same, I'm quite young in the dream too. Wonder if I'm remembering a murder I actually did commit.
A long time ago, I was brought in for questioning regarding a murder. I was young and didn't know any better, but "I had nothing to hide".
The DA wanted me to say that I knew something about it and so he walked me through the entire scene, showed me pictures, told me he entire version of where I fit into the picture and so on. Showed me some pretty graphic images of the bodies, etc.
I could see how some people might be traumatized by this sort of "questioning" and simply allowing whoever they are speaking with to paint the picture and end up believing that they are in it.
After all, these were people I had known. I had been friends with the accused. It's not like they were completely unknown to me. I already had memories of these people. What if some of those memories just needed some "help" to come to light?
Coupled with whatever intense emotions + this sort of vivid storytelling... I could definitely buy that people would end up creating memories that don't really exist.
Memory is a story we tell ourselves about the past, and the memory is recreated every time we tell the story. It's very possible to have real memories of things that never happened. We can make them entirely on our own, or people can put them into our heads. Real memories of things that never happened.
Dr Julia Shaw's "The Memory Illusion" contains a readable account of doing so.
Saw an interesting documentary on the topic lately. They also had an interrogator who got someone to confess to a crime they didnt commit. And not just confess but actually believe it with the brain making up details of something that never happened.
He was lucky that it turned out he wasnt in the country at the time of the murder and they found the alleged real killer instead.
Cant repeat it often enough, just never talk to cops. No smalltalk no nothing. If it comes to it talk to your attorney and then the judge. The police isnt looking for the truth but for a solid case for a conviction. Finding the truth is the job of a judge or a jury.
Good luck on getting out of a hole you dug yourself in before they determined that you make a good culprit. Lawyers do love themselves a client that decided they needed a lawyer after talking for hours.
If you are sure you a only a wittiness and have something worthwhile to contribute prepare a statement, give that and nothing more. If they have more questions repeat the process. Once you start a conversation you are betting on how much CSI the officer saw recently and how shady they think you look.
The only words that should ever come out of your mouth and float to a cop’s ears are, “I’m invoking my rights to an attorney, and silence.” Rinse and repeat as needed, and ignore ideological arguments from strangers on the internet that don’t have your best interests in mind.
I am; the stupidest thing anyone can do is try to save some time at the expense of placing faith in the justice system. I’d add, how screwed up is a system that punishes you for exercising your constitutional rights.
"Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law."
Note two things about this statement:
1) Nothing you say will be used for you.
2) Everything you say will be used against you.
I forget the lawyer's name, but the above is paraphrased from a former prosecutor turned D.A. Never put forward any statement to the police without at least consulting your lawyer first. Even if you're innocent, even if you're providing a witness statement. Anything.
By all means - give witness statements. Help the police do their job. Just be sure to speak with a lawyer first. There's a very high chance that even though you did nothing wrong you'll incriminate yourself by speaking up.
You may be thinking of Don't Talk to the Police[1]? I'm not sure if the speaker explicitly says this or just quotes someone who did, but let's just say that this is a recurring theme in the talk...
"Will be used against you" to me is one of the strongest arguments against government surveillance without warrants. You can choose to not talk to police. You can't choose to have your data not gathered by the NSA.
Point 1 doesn't logically follow from the Miranda rights. In fact, that's the whole point of the adversarial court system: everything you say will be used for and against you, by the defense and the prosecution respectively.
How do you think your defense would obtain a copy of anything you said to use in your favor? In a situation where you would need it, it won't be presented unless you happen to have been recording yourself. But if you trust the police to not use things you say against you then you're also likely to trust them enough to not be recording your interactions.
The prosecution has no incentive or motivation to present evidence that could be used to the benefit of the defense.
>Under the rule set forth in Brady v. Maryland, the prosecutor is obligated to provide to the defendant any information that is exculpatory or potentially exculpatory, without any request by the defense. Further discovery is available if initiated by the defendant. For example, a discovery demand might be for production of the names of witnesses, witness statements, information about evidence, a request for opportunity to inspect tangible evidence, and for any reports prepared by expert witnesses who will testify at trial.
You have far more faith in the system than I do and especially that the police wouldn't deny the existence of evidence that you said what you say you said if it suited them. Things are conveniently lost, misfiled or "never existed" in the first place.. They withold your statement from discovery. You claim they have a written report of your statement and knowingly withheld it. They claim they don't have it, have never had one, and it's nowhere to be found. Now what?
People have a civic duty to cooperate with police to make their communities safer, true.
The problem is that the police abuse this relationship to rush investgations and slap names on casefiles. If you say you were there, you become a suspect and if it goes to trial then your life literally falls into the hands of the most simpleminded people that voir dire couldn't eliminate, or a single "impartial" individual.
Or, a simpler (real!) case- suppose you drive away from a bar having had too much to drink. You realize your mistake, pull over safely and pass out behind the wheel. A carjacker approaches you and steals your car at gunpoint. You go crying to the police.
Soon as you tell them what you were even doing there, you're facing DUI charges yourself. You become the bad guy.
Even if your car is recovered, you won't be driving it anytime soon. You'll lose your job if your employer finds out . You'll spend thousands on legal defense. All told you end up being punished more severely than the actual criminal-- because even if caught, he has nothing to lose.
And this was all brought about because you freely admitted to committing a crime yourself.
If you did pass out from drinking, even if you realized that it was a bad idea before anything happened, you deserve the DUI and don't deserve to use a car, I would hope the police don't just let you go free because you were carjacked.
How do you know you're a suspect? Are the police required to tell you? What if you become a suspect after you talk to the police? Are they required to disregard all the things you already told them?
> Cant repeat it often enough, just never talk to cops. No smalltalk no nothing.
What if you actually did do it, though? Wouldn't it be in the best interest of society if you did talk to the cops/confess?
Otherwise you are just making everyone waste a bunch of time and money doing a dog and pony show that might result in an innocent person being punished for your crimes.
If you did it, you should especially never talk to the cops. However, you should always tell your lawyer the truth, so they can help you in the most efficient way possible. E.g., convince you to plea instead of wasting money on a jury trial.
You shouldn't need to be asking yourself that as you shouldn't be going around committing crimes?
But even then, talk to an attorney if you want to confess something and he will tell you how to do that. I dont know the situation in the US, but I would assume it would also involve the prosecutor instead of the police.
> You shouldn't need to be asking yourself that as you shouldn't be going around committing crimes?
Some people feel guilty after committing crimes and turn themselves in. I'm asking on behalf of those types. Why is it a bad idea for them to just show up at the police department and confess?
Well, an obvious problem with it is that they may (will, probably) inadvertently confess to many many more crimes than they realize. A lawyer can help for "negotiating" a fair sentence.
(The police & prosecutors will try to pin as much as possible on you. It's all about those numbers.)
You may feel guilty, but not enough to commit seppuku. So you can at least request your mortal body not be placed in the local hellhole prison, get a more reasonable sentence, etc. This is done by having a lawyer negotiating on your behalf.
I'll be honest I don't understand "never talk to cops". Last night I was walking to my home (this is Boston, MA) and a cop very politely asked me if I walk this way every night this time. I was dumbfounded since I was listening to music and I get super anxious around cops so I said a few stupid things like "uhmm maybe, sometimes". He took a step away probably tried to show I'm not being interrogated and asked if I was here around this time last night, he's just looking for information for some case. I told him I went to the gym last night so I wasn't here around this time but a few hours later. He thanked me and I walked my way. In that situation would it make more sense to not say anything? I mean why would that be any better than saying what I said.
Of course it would have made more sense to not say anything! Can’t you see that you may have made yourself a suspect in a crime by admitting that you walk that way every night to a cop? It sounds ridiculous because it is, but it doesn’t make the fact that you put yourself at risk by talking tot he cop any less true
Sure but they have absolutely no evidence. They could do that anyway. They can just randomly pick me from crowd and claim I'm a suspect and they'd have the same amount of evidence. Or worse, they can observe the street and see that I walk it every day. If we believe US cops are dystopic like that, not talking to them doesn't solve those problems.
The problem is you dont have to assume malice, as it is reasonable for a cop to react that way in his circumstances.
I dont assume the cop in the video linked above wanted to pin something on the guy, he most likely really believed he was guilty. Thats the problem.
Cops are confronted with criminals every day and its their job to look for suspects. Its really easy to look like a nail if someone has a hammer. And once you are seen as a suspect, confirmation bias sets in. And with every word you say the risk of them finding something that looks to them like circumstantial evidence rises. Assume you said you are walking there every night, but once he specifies to yesterday you contradict yourself, because yesterday was an exception. Now add some dumb luck and you know the victim of what ever happened and you dont have an alibi. Now you returned to the crime scene, know the victim and lied to a cop.
Talking to a cop is simply reckless. They question suspects everyday and its likely your first time. You dont have to be guilty to contradict yourself in a stress situation, speech is a rather imperfect way to communicate.
And sure, they can suspect you either way, and there is nothing you can do about it except getting an attorney. Cops suspecting you of something isnt that big of an issue, there is a separation of power between executive and judiciary for a reason. Its the job of a cop to make a case against a suspect. Its the job of a judge and jury to evaluate if that actually happened.
I agree it's not a great equilibrium though. Police need to be able to get info from the community to do their jobs. But the problem is, who can trust them?
I don't know if the arguments in this video apply out of the US or not.
I wouldn’t say never, but you do have to be extremely careful and say as little as possible.
I didn’t really get it until I came into a situation where a policeman was convinced I was up to something (not realising there was a breath testing station set up a few hundred metres up the road, I pulled over to make a phone call, and they came over convinced I was trying to evade them for some reason). Luckily it was pretty low stakes, and everything was in order, and the worst that was going to happen was maybe they might have pinged me if my tires had been a bit worn or something.
But it was extremely disturbing how throughly he looked for something to back up his incorrect suspicion, to try and find anything to build a case. He even said once he was done, as he told me to move on, that he was still suspicious! Having read so many stories of miscarriages of justice that have happened to innocent people, it was enough to show just how dangerous it can be to be completely innocent when a policeman suspects you of something. A guilty person knows they need to conceal, but somebody who is innocent often doesn’t know that the officer might have a very wrong hunch and might be looking for anything you say to make you a suspect.
It’s disturbing to wonder how it might have gone if, say, instead of them just checking for drunk drivers, something like a murder had happened nearby earlier in the evening...
Derren Brown's The Guilt Trip, a British TV special in which Derren convinces a young man (by various psychological techniques, using a cast of dozens) to suspect that he has committed murder, and even to confess to the murder, without interrogation or even being aware of any manipulation. Pretty amazing. (As are most of Derren's TV shows)
Everybody in the U.S. should read "You & the Police" by Boston T. Party.
If you disagree with the author's Libertarian bent then look up one of the "know your rights" things from the ACLU, tho the breadth of scenarios covered there is much lower. For example the ACLU doesn't typically teach you how to avoid having your gun rights trampled by the police using questionable laws that vary from state to state and city to city, or used as faux "probable cause" to escalate your encounter toward arrest. For reasons like that I recommend Boston T. Party's book. The ACLU's stuff is also more sound bitey, for better and worse. Better yet, read both :-)
Thanks for this "Down the rabbit hole" article, that led me to the innocence project, the Stockholm syndrome [condition that causes hostages to develop a psychological alliance with their captors as a survival strategy during captivity], Patty Hearst Trial, the SLA and the life of psychiatrist Joel Fort. You have made my day :D
49 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 120 ms ] threadThe DA wanted me to say that I knew something about it and so he walked me through the entire scene, showed me pictures, told me he entire version of where I fit into the picture and so on. Showed me some pretty graphic images of the bodies, etc.
I could see how some people might be traumatized by this sort of "questioning" and simply allowing whoever they are speaking with to paint the picture and end up believing that they are in it.
After all, these were people I had known. I had been friends with the accused. It's not like they were completely unknown to me. I already had memories of these people. What if some of those memories just needed some "help" to come to light?
Coupled with whatever intense emotions + this sort of vivid storytelling... I could definitely buy that people would end up creating memories that don't really exist.
Dr Julia Shaw's "The Memory Illusion" contains a readable account of doing so.
https://youtu.be/FxOy6z0yq5w?t=1462
He was lucky that it turned out he wasnt in the country at the time of the murder and they found the alleged real killer instead.
Cant repeat it often enough, just never talk to cops. No smalltalk no nothing. If it comes to it talk to your attorney and then the judge. The police isnt looking for the truth but for a solid case for a conviction. Finding the truth is the job of a judge or a jury.
Yes, definitely 'talk to the cops' unless you're a suspect of something that you didn't do, and then of course get a lawyer.
If you are sure you a only a wittiness and have something worthwhile to contribute prepare a statement, give that and nothing more. If they have more questions repeat the process. Once you start a conversation you are betting on how much CSI the officer saw recently and how shady they think you look.
To many people only remember to ask for a lawyer and are then thrown when its not a viable option and resign and start talking instead.
Not having a conversation however is always an option you should stick by no matter what.
Oh and “ghetto-like” wasn’t necessary.
Note two things about this statement:
1) Nothing you say will be used for you.
2) Everything you say will be used against you.
I forget the lawyer's name, but the above is paraphrased from a former prosecutor turned D.A. Never put forward any statement to the police without at least consulting your lawyer first. Even if you're innocent, even if you're providing a witness statement. Anything.
By all means - give witness statements. Help the police do their job. Just be sure to speak with a lawyer first. There's a very high chance that even though you did nothing wrong you'll incriminate yourself by speaking up.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
The prosecution has no incentive or motivation to present evidence that could be used to the benefit of the defense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)
Specifically:
>Under the rule set forth in Brady v. Maryland, the prosecutor is obligated to provide to the defendant any information that is exculpatory or potentially exculpatory, without any request by the defense. Further discovery is available if initiated by the defendant. For example, a discovery demand might be for production of the names of witnesses, witness statements, information about evidence, a request for opportunity to inspect tangible evidence, and for any reports prepared by expert witnesses who will testify at trial.
The problem is that the police abuse this relationship to rush investgations and slap names on casefiles. If you say you were there, you become a suspect and if it goes to trial then your life literally falls into the hands of the most simpleminded people that voir dire couldn't eliminate, or a single "impartial" individual.
Or, a simpler (real!) case- suppose you drive away from a bar having had too much to drink. You realize your mistake, pull over safely and pass out behind the wheel. A carjacker approaches you and steals your car at gunpoint. You go crying to the police.
Soon as you tell them what you were even doing there, you're facing DUI charges yourself. You become the bad guy.
Even if your car is recovered, you won't be driving it anytime soon. You'll lose your job if your employer finds out . You'll spend thousands on legal defense. All told you end up being punished more severely than the actual criminal-- because even if caught, he has nothing to lose.
And this was all brought about because you freely admitted to committing a crime yourself.
What if you actually did do it, though? Wouldn't it be in the best interest of society if you did talk to the cops/confess?
Otherwise you are just making everyone waste a bunch of time and money doing a dog and pony show that might result in an innocent person being punished for your crimes.
But even then, talk to an attorney if you want to confess something and he will tell you how to do that. I dont know the situation in the US, but I would assume it would also involve the prosecutor instead of the police.
Some people feel guilty after committing crimes and turn themselves in. I'm asking on behalf of those types. Why is it a bad idea for them to just show up at the police department and confess?
(The police & prosecutors will try to pin as much as possible on you. It's all about those numbers.)
You may feel guilty, but not enough to commit seppuku. So you can at least request your mortal body not be placed in the local hellhole prison, get a more reasonable sentence, etc. This is done by having a lawyer negotiating on your behalf.
This video is of a fancy defense attorney and a police detective discussing about "talking to the police". BOTH, say don't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
I dont assume the cop in the video linked above wanted to pin something on the guy, he most likely really believed he was guilty. Thats the problem.
Cops are confronted with criminals every day and its their job to look for suspects. Its really easy to look like a nail if someone has a hammer. And once you are seen as a suspect, confirmation bias sets in. And with every word you say the risk of them finding something that looks to them like circumstantial evidence rises. Assume you said you are walking there every night, but once he specifies to yesterday you contradict yourself, because yesterday was an exception. Now add some dumb luck and you know the victim of what ever happened and you dont have an alibi. Now you returned to the crime scene, know the victim and lied to a cop.
Talking to a cop is simply reckless. They question suspects everyday and its likely your first time. You dont have to be guilty to contradict yourself in a stress situation, speech is a rather imperfect way to communicate.
And sure, they can suspect you either way, and there is nothing you can do about it except getting an attorney. Cops suspecting you of something isnt that big of an issue, there is a separation of power between executive and judiciary for a reason. Its the job of a cop to make a case against a suspect. Its the job of a judge and jury to evaluate if that actually happened.
I agree it's not a great equilibrium though. Police need to be able to get info from the community to do their jobs. But the problem is, who can trust them?
I don't know if the arguments in this video apply out of the US or not.
I didn’t really get it until I came into a situation where a policeman was convinced I was up to something (not realising there was a breath testing station set up a few hundred metres up the road, I pulled over to make a phone call, and they came over convinced I was trying to evade them for some reason). Luckily it was pretty low stakes, and everything was in order, and the worst that was going to happen was maybe they might have pinged me if my tires had been a bit worn or something.
But it was extremely disturbing how throughly he looked for something to back up his incorrect suspicion, to try and find anything to build a case. He even said once he was done, as he told me to move on, that he was still suspicious! Having read so many stories of miscarriages of justice that have happened to innocent people, it was enough to show just how dangerous it can be to be completely innocent when a policeman suspects you of something. A guilty person knows they need to conceal, but somebody who is innocent often doesn’t know that the officer might have a very wrong hunch and might be looking for anything you say to make you a suspect.
It’s disturbing to wonder how it might have gone if, say, instead of them just checking for drunk drivers, something like a murder had happened nearby earlier in the evening...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AzTLw0Xwok
If you disagree with the author's Libertarian bent then look up one of the "know your rights" things from the ACLU, tho the breadth of scenarios covered there is much lower. For example the ACLU doesn't typically teach you how to avoid having your gun rights trampled by the police using questionable laws that vary from state to state and city to city, or used as faux "probable cause" to escalate your encounter toward arrest. For reasons like that I recommend Boston T. Party's book. The ACLU's stuff is also more sound bitey, for better and worse. Better yet, read both :-)