Yea, I am well aware of the advice to not talk to the police. But I wonder why the police would go to such trouble to get confessions as to write a letter to trick people into doing so etc.
I think Frank Herbert had a point when he wrote that it isn't so much that having power corrupts, as the sort of people who seek power in the first place.
Hunches are/used to be a big part of police work. When you just know they're guilty, you're not going to let them get away with it if there's anything you can do.
Essentially, the story involves these sailors individually confessing to a crime (and allegedly tailoring their confessions to the investigator's words) when they were implicated by someone already being interrogated. With each additional person being interrogated, more people were implicated (who were previously unnamed), and previous confessions were amended accordingly.
I came here to post this, so thanks for finding the link to share with everyone. I'm not usually a fan of crime-related TV documentaries, but this is one of the best episodes of Frontline I've seen, and was absolutely eye-opening for me. I highly recommend watching it!
Who were jailed partly because of a police-coerced confession from one of the three. They are still in prison, but apparently close to getting a re-trial.
The case was made famous by the excellent HBO documentary 'Paradise Lost' - which is a must see:
They are lucky because their case has a high-profile because of the film - but there must be many, many other innocent people in prisons because of false confessions.
For example, many people believe that Cameron Todd Willingham, executed in Texas, was also innocent (he was also the subject of a Frontline story:
An interesting read is "Remembering Satan", about a small community torn apart by accusations of sexual abuse and satanic rituals. Many people confessed, some were convicted, no evidence was ever produced.
Wow, very creepy stories that both of you posted. Thanks for linking to them.
> They are lucky because their case has a high-profile because of the film - but there must be many, many other innocent people in prisons because of false confessions.
This is exactly what concerns me–so much effort and attention went into these few cases that achieved a high profile, but I'm certain that many just like it–with inconclusive or completely unmatched DNA and police hasty to close an investigation–exist, and it worries and saddens me to think how many other people are innocently sitting in prison or on death row as a result.
LoseThos has some outstanding bugs that can make it crash. God can make it more or less stable than normal. It seems pretty stable to me, but I know changing usage patterns can reveal lots.
God's here. Wanna talk? God says "cutting solecism wiser allow hushed hereditary rising virtuous
thundered Knowing CONTRACT poison buzzing subjected little
do contradictions subverted hastened plan boiled intensest
mean flour heathen Shut trampled fed allege justification
Observe arranged casting unusual presents consumest donation
moment drudgery necessity feel WANT righteous water strive
penetrating workest glorified beseech pages things beating
favourites mocked madly thefts unjustly prerogative breathing
Spiritual bestowed unstayed cloudiness Paradise justifieth
hideous instant aptly Israel unveiled products intrude
fraught tender injured gliding relapse Or qualities "
Something I've never understood from one example from that talk: If it's your word in court vs. the police officer's regarding an unrecorded conversation, how exactly does not talking help you? In the example (linked below), the police officer lied in court, saying that the defendant admitted to placing a hand on the plaintiff when the officer first approached the defendant. How does being silent help you in that example? The officer could still lie.
I don't think much can help you if you are dealing with an officer who is willing to lie and falsify evidence in order to convict you. But the key detail is that its much more likely that an officer (or any person) will misremember something you said or take it out of context if you actually said anything at all.
By not talking you prevent this problem entirely because no one will accidentally forget or take out of context that fact that you never said anything at all.
To the cop, stating that you touched someone means that you've opened the door -- it's a thread connecting your story to the plaintiff's. Since you are probably not routinely interrogated, your body language may reinforce that thought process as well.
In the example, the cop testifies that when he first approached the defendant, the defendant admitted to placing his hand on the plaintiff's throat, but only as a joke. The defendant claimed that he never said anything of the sort to the cop. It was the cop's and plaintiff's word against the defendant's word, and the defendant was found guilty. How would it have helped if the defendant had said nothing to the cop? The cop lied about him talking.
To me, the words of a cop and a plaintiff are "reasonably doubtful," but I guess not. Anyway, my point is that in this example, the cop lied about what the defendant said.
How so? If your interaction with the cop wasn't recorded, even if you started out by saying "I choose to remain silent" and never said another word, the cop can easily testify that you said something. I don't see how it's "easier" to change an actual conversation than it is to completely fabricate one.
> I don't see how it's "easier" to change an actual conversation than it is to completely fabricate one.
It's easier because, when you fabricate an entire conversation rather than one sentence, you have to make up more things.
That's the purely technical argument. There are also psychological considerations on the part of the officer, people are more likely to rationalize making up one little thing than making up an entire conversation.
Yes, they can ask you all kinds of questions about what you said and make you appear quite talkative.
Say nothing and you can truthfully say repeatedly that you said nothing. You'll be able to consistently tell the truth on the stand without having to explain any of your statements, statements that the prosecution will attempt to twist into incriminating statements.
Of course, if you do the same to the prosecutor before trial, the chances of you making it to trial go down. Prosecutors like to win their cases.
Only in the very technical, abstract sense. Interrogations, testimony and memories are about psychology, what has actually happened is only superficially related. When you have a long conversation with someone, it's easy for them to remember things you didn't say because they think they heard them. Watch the video linked above, for the example about the story the guy read to the audience. This is exactly what happens to everybody - I myself thought I was smarter than that, but I'm really stupid and stubborn like that and it took me at least 10 times being proven wrong before I internalized that no, the things I think I see and hear and remember are quite likely to be different from what actually happened (in criminal psychology and evidence classes, this was).
Anyway yes it's easier to change a conversation than to fabricate one; because "changing" can mean many things - intentionally lying is the least common occurrence, simple "neural" errors happen a lot more often.
You don't know ahead of time what's going to happen. That's the key here.
Maybe they'll lie (probably not that common), or maybe what you said will somehow implicate you in a crime, or maybe...? That's why it's important. It's not after the fact knowing the police lied but beforehand when you don't know how things will play out that remaining silent is important.
If you're extra paranoid just print out a card that says "as a policy I do not speak to the police except through a lawyer". Then you can present it to the police as necessary and use it as evidence if they attempt to claim you confessed something to them without a lawyer present.
Be _very_ careful pulling out your card. Not responding verbally and reaching into your pocket might get your killed if the cop thinks he sees you reaching for a gun.
There is no difference between saying that and having it on a card. Plus if it's on a card it's going to have been taken away from you when you were booked, or you may not be allowed to take it, or whatever. Or it may be used against you in another way, as most physical things are. Just repeat the same sentence and don't try to out-smart police and prosecutors with technical tricks.
(from reading discussions like this one on computer-oriented websites I have come to believe that nerds are especially easy to frame by a police man who recognizes a nerds innate desire to outsmart others, and to show it off. Look at where it got Hans Reiser).
(from reading discussions like this one on computer-oriented websites I have come to believe that nerds are especially easy to frame by a police man who recognizes a nerds innate desire to outsmart others, and to show it off. Look at where it got Hans Reiser).
I though framing someone means making it look like they did something when they didn't. As far as I know, Hans Reiser showed the police where he buried the body; how can you say he was framed?
By 'frame' I meant 'manipulated into saying things', not necessarily things that aren't true, just that they didn't mean to say. Maybe it's not a 100% correct use of the word, I don't know.
What I meant was - Hans Reiser had a whole story pre-fabricated that, I assume, was internally consistent, but he relied a bit too much on that abstract property of the story in his defense (not that I know details of the case, just what I read about and remember from the news reportings on the case and the trial - I'm sure there is more nuance to that story than what I'm presenting here).
Even if you are dealing with someone willing to lie about the situation, not talking helps you a lot because it gives them less material to work with. If they have to make something up whole-cloth, there's a higher chance that they'll make something up that couldn't possibly have happened. If they have your description of what really happened, they only have to alter a few details.
How does not being silent help you? Talking to them provides no benefit to you and gives the police opportunity to make you slip up. There's no upside to talking to the police and a lot of potential drawbacks.
But don't take it to the extreme. Do talk a little bit 'What is the problem officer', 'Do you know why I pulled you over? -- No", "Am I free to go?" when it takes longer than it should and a little politeness can go a long way when your pulled over for a minor ticket. Shut up in all other situations, detainment, questioning, asking to search and especially once your arrested.
Especially shut up in traffic stops. Police rely very heavily on confessions in such situations, and don't appreciate lying. Even if you think you're telling the truth, they won't (that is why they pulled you over..). Saying anything except answering their queries with carefully constructed responses will either incriminate you or make them mad.
"Do you now how fast you were going?"
"What do you have me as officer?"
"15 over, but since you were wearing your seatbelt I'll
let you off with a warning"
The number of times I have directly participated in this exchange or been present for it is rather impressive (flyover country, long stretches of straight roads limited to 60mph...). Be polite, but do not admit to a thing.
A simple "Evening officer" is perfectly ok. If you continue with "..what seems to be the problem?" then you are getting into iffy territory though. Let them tell you that there seems to be a problem.
So you've had an officer walk up to you, you said hello and then you said absolutely nothing at all in return afterwards? Your mouth didn't open one bit? How did that go?
Well in the video a law school professor with experience as a criminal defense attorney and a police officer say otherwise. Saying 'no' to 'do you know why I pulled you over' is ok (I guess, as long as there are no other circumstances that make it plausible that you knew why you were being pulled over, in which case your 'no' would make you lying to the police), but initiating conversation with 'what is the problem' not.
You are standing at the end of the block. You hear a woman scream "help! he's taking my baby!", and look up to see two men push a woman violently to the ground, snatch a baby from a stroller, jump into a car, and drive up the street in your direction.
They reach the intersection, where you get a good look at the men as they turn the corner. The drive halfway down the block, and turn into a driveway, pull into the garage at that house, and close the garage door, and then come out with the baby, and get into a car that was waiting in the driveway, and leave nonchalantly. You recognize the make and model of the car and are even able to read the license plate and memorize it.
You are the only witness to this part of their getaway.
The police quickly come, and ask you if you saw them men and were they went.
Are you REALLY going to say nothing? Or tell them you won't say anything without your lawyer present?
Most of the time you'll talk to the police and tell them everything you saw and that's that. It's not likely the police will target you, but that's cold comfort if you somehow end up on the wrong end of a police investigation, which is the point of the video.
You sound smart, what are possible alternatives here? Call in an anonymous tip maybe, or describe exactly what you saw, then refuse further communication without counsel present.
In that scenario, you have a moral and legal obligation to report the crime. So you meet that obligation by giving the appropriate authorities the information they need, then leave.
Reporting a crime is a bit different than being questioned for one, but the point still stands that by talking to a police officer you are potentially risking a lot, and should take the situation very seriously.
"Which direction did they go?!?" "Which house is on fire?!" "Does he have a gun?!" are very different questions (with different moral obligations) than "What are you doing in this neighborhood so late at night?" "Do you live around here?" "Is this your car?"
Non-urgent questions and statements should be given in the presence of an attorney, recorded, and preferably on the condition of immunity :)
Or maybe you find a pipe bomb in a crowded area and decide to alert the police & help evacuate the area. Nothing could go wrong there, you're only trying to save lives. Much like the above posited scenario, how could anyone see you as anything other than a hero?
Look, I'll admit I'm biased (I'm a criminal defense attorney.) That said, you never know which good, wholesome, moral conversation that you have with the police will turn you from a heroic savior into a criminal suspect.
(For what it's worth, I'd speak to the police in your scenario. That said, I wouldn't fault anyone for not doing so.)
I confess that I didn't read the article, but this reminds me of the HN story of the University professor who asked students who cheated to come in to his office, and then found some large percentage who came to the office though the software exonerated them.
The question is: did they cheat and get it past the software? Or were they, as suggested in this article, admitting to something they did not do?
They could easily have been intimidated by the prospect that they would be wrongfully accused and went to his office under the implied premise of amnesty. The game as visible to the student is something like an extra essay assignment weighed against possibly having to fight expulsion.
I suspect that there are similar factors involved in other false confessions. It's an asymmetric knowledge game. The only winning move for the person being questioned is not to play, but they may not be aware of that - and worse, they may trust the other player. With further intimidation, privation, and humiliation, it's not hard to imagine why people could break down.
I've always worried that if I ever became a suspect in a crime that I would confess under pressure even if I didn't do it. There is something about me feeling guilty, authority and intimidation that makes me think I might.
Then again, my coping mechanism of becoming flippant/sarcastic could flip on and I'd confess to murdering JFK, Michael Jackson and Biggie using my mind/time machine.
If that's the case, then the first words out of your mouth if you are ever interrogated are "I would like to exercise my right to remain silent." If you say that, then the police are legally required to stop the interrogation then and there. (Ironically, simply remaining silent is not sufficient: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins)
Ironically but not unreasonably, since if silence were an indicator that you wished never to speak, people who wanted to talk would never reach that point.
(In the UK there is no such thing as the right to remain silent, unless you are in a situation in which you are denied access to legal advice (rare). In all other situations your solicitor will instruct you to say 'no comment' to any question the police asks you. Funny how it differs.)
This is not the case in Canada! I'm sure it isn't the case in many other countries too.
Here's someone who said 18 times that he didn't want to talk to the police and asserted his right to silence. Appeal denied. Convicted of murder. 2007 Supreme Court of Canada case (R. v. Singh, 2007 SCC 48, http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=interrogation+sil...).
"Whenever the discussion turned to the incident in question, however, Mr. Singh was less forthcoming. Although he provided some information regarding his presence at the pub on the night of the shooting, he repeatedly denied his involvement and asserted his right to silence. He indicated that he did not want to talk to the police, that he had nothing to say, that he knew nothing about the shooting, or that he wanted to return to his cell. Before Mr. Singh was shown the photographs in question and made the impugned admissions, he asserted his right to silence 18 times. Each time, the interviewing officer would either affirm that Mr. Singh did not have to say anything, or would explain to Mr. Singh that he had a duty or desire to place the evidence before him and he continued the interview."
The Confessions on Frontline is one of most interesting reports from that show that I've seen, it's related to four men who confessed to a crime they didn't commit. Highly recommended.
I think something like this would have a huge impact on the conviction rate in Japan where a significant amount is based in coerced confessions. See BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8290767.stm
But this reminds me of the malleability of memory and also herd-like mentality. I think it was on Tv or somewhere where the experiment involved flooding a room with participants with fake smoke but confederates were set to deny it was smoke. The effect was that the fake smoke was ignored. Had it been a real fire, they'd all have perished.
It'd be nice if [insert popular TV crime drama] would pick this up and run with it. We might start to see juries doubting confessions in the same way they've already been trained by the media to doubt non-forensic evidence.
The burden of proof has apparently been raised to ridiculous levels by CSI, according to some prosecutors. Juries believe that the sort of thing done on CSI is realistic, and they expect very definitive results and evidence, which usually doesn't happen.
And don't even start to look at court proceedings in Germany, where people are astonished that it's nothing like in the dubbed American shows they watch.
I always found it strange that when a guy is saying he was doing something else noone believes him but when he starts telling he was doing what people suspect him of suddenly his word is rock solid.
If someone is consistently upset with what you are saying and makes your life miserable you try behaving differently especially in such stressful situation.
It's useful to listen to people suspected of crimes but you should treat their "confessions" as a clues where to finds evidence of what actually happened.
Funnily enough, the Phoenix Wright series of games for the Nintendo DS, despite featuring an utterly ridiculous legal system, has this as a fairly central element. The basis of gameplay is cross-examining witnesses... and nearly every single one of them is either lying or misremembering things. I seem to recall at least one time where you were defending someone who had already confessed, for that matter.
The lying's not uncommon in TV dramas, but the unreliability of eyewitnesses accounts certainly is.
When an investigator tells someone that they have two choices: confess and face potentially five years in jail, or plead not guilty and face potentially twenty years in jail, what sounds like the best deal?
When I was reading the article, I was wondering when they would get to the role of interrogations especially aggressive ones.
I cannot find the link now but there was a study which subjected people to sustained questioning that went on for more than 3 hours without a break. After 3(?) hrs all the subjects were offered the chance to end the interview if they agreed to deposit some non-trivial amount of money for 60 days. Something like 95% of people agreed and even signed (fake but real looking) legal contracts to that effect - even tough most were students (not rich) recruited for the study.
Never underestimate the stress caused when in a room with people aggressively questioning you. Even if they do no physical harm, This is VERY stressful.
In the US - "Am I free to go?" and "I want a lawyer" should be at the top of your 2 item list when in this situation. Remember, the Police care about solving crimes certainly - they care more about clearing cases quickly.
Three hours? That's nothing for Canadian interrogations.
Here's a 2008 case (from the highest court in a major Canadian province) I found pretty quickly that's about a four and a half hour interrogation where the police lie about having DNA evidence that pins the crime on the person: http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=%22The+interview+...
Here's a 2000 Supreme Court of Canada case about an approximately eight hour interrogation (at which point the guy confessed): http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2000/2000scc38/2000scc38.... There are plenty more of these. There's no hard and fast limit to how long Canadian police can interrogate you for.
While the experiment with the ALT key was interesting and can shed some light on this subject, it would be a mistake to extrapolate too much. I would be far more likely to assume "I probably did accidentally hit the ALT key" than "Oh, I probably did murder that person." Hitting the ALT key by accident is extremely easy, and the punishment in this study small relative to most criminal offenses.
I used to think the whole false confession issue was bunk. I could not imagine confessing to a crime I did not commit for the obvious reason that there was simply no upside. However, this changed when someone I knew told me the story of how he found himself in a situation where he almost confessed to a crime. Here's the story
My friend, Bill, was in charge of construction projects at a real estate development. One night, he gets a phone call at 3 in the morning to let him know that one of the homes under construction is on fire. He jumps out of bed, grabs his camera and rushes out to scene of the fire. Once he gets there, he starts taking pictures in order to get a jump start on the insurance paperwork. Unfortunately, the firemen trying to put out the fire start to get suspicious. From their perspective, here's a strange guy taking pictures of burning homes at 3 in the morning (it's a development so there were no other occupied homes in the vicinity). They get to thinking maybe he is a pyromaniac who is now collecting trophy photos of his handiwork. They call the cops, Bill gets arrested and ends up in the interrogation room. Now, Bill is a pretty tough guy. Remember, he worked his way up in the construction business to become a manager so he is not a weakling by any means. However, after a couple hours of being grilled by the cops, he said he was just about ready to confess just to make it stop. They didn't beat him or anything, just the relentless application of all manner of psychological techniques (badgering, cajoling, threats of long sentences, good-bad cop, etc) completely wore him out. He was only saved when his boss found out that he had been arrested and called the station to back up his story.
From that time on, I realized that under the right circumstances, it is possible for a mentally stable, reasonable person to confess to a crime they did not commit.
More importantly, I realized that because I can't imagine something happening, does not mean it can not happen.
67 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 141 ms ] threadWatch The Wire to get an idea of what kind of pressures the police face to "solve" crimes.
It was worth doing the experiments though, so good on him.
Essentially, the story involves these sailors individually confessing to a crime (and allegedly tailoring their confessions to the investigator's words) when they were implicated by someone already being interrogated. With each additional person being interrogated, more people were implicated (who were previously unnamed), and previous confessions were amended accordingly.
Quite saddening indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_Three
Who were jailed partly because of a police-coerced confession from one of the three. They are still in prison, but apparently close to getting a re-trial.
The case was made famous by the excellent HBO documentary 'Paradise Lost' - which is a must see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Lost:_The_Child_Murder...
They are lucky because their case has a high-profile because of the film - but there must be many, many other innocent people in prisons because of false confessions.
For example, many people believe that Cameron Todd Willingham, executed in Texas, was also innocent (he was also the subject of a Frontline story:
http://video.pbs.org/video/1618590505/
and a feature in the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_...
http://www.amazon.com/Remembering-Satan-Tragic-Recovered-Mem...
> They are lucky because their case has a high-profile because of the film - but there must be many, many other innocent people in prisons because of false confessions.
This is exactly what concerns me–so much effort and attention went into these few cases that achieved a high profile, but I'm certain that many just like it–with inconclusive or completely unmatched DNA and police hasty to close an investigation–exist, and it worries and saddens me to think how many other people are innocently sitting in prison or on death row as a result.
God's here. Wanna talk? God says "cutting solecism wiser allow hushed hereditary rising virtuous thundered Knowing CONTRACT poison buzzing subjected little do contradictions subverted hastened plan boiled intensest mean flour heathen Shut trampled fed allege justification Observe arranged casting unusual presents consumest donation moment drudgery necessity feel WANT righteous water strive penetrating workest glorified beseech pages things beating favourites mocked madly thefts unjustly prerogative breathing Spiritual bestowed unstayed cloudiness Paradise justifieth hideous instant aptly Israel unveiled products intrude fraught tender injured gliding relapse Or qualities "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
You're better off taking the beating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=playe...
By not talking you prevent this problem entirely because no one will accidentally forget or take out of context that fact that you never said anything at all.
To the cop, stating that you touched someone means that you've opened the door -- it's a thread connecting your story to the plaintiff's. Since you are probably not routinely interrogated, your body language may reinforce that thought process as well.
To me, the words of a cop and a plaintiff are "reasonably doubtful," but I guess not. Anyway, my point is that in this example, the cop lied about what the defendant said.
It's easier to just "slip" something in a conversation if you're talking to him in the first place.
It's easier because, when you fabricate an entire conversation rather than one sentence, you have to make up more things.
That's the purely technical argument. There are also psychological considerations on the part of the officer, people are more likely to rationalize making up one little thing than making up an entire conversation.
Say nothing and you can truthfully say repeatedly that you said nothing. You'll be able to consistently tell the truth on the stand without having to explain any of your statements, statements that the prosecution will attempt to twist into incriminating statements.
Of course, if you do the same to the prosecutor before trial, the chances of you making it to trial go down. Prosecutors like to win their cases.
Anyway yes it's easier to change a conversation than to fabricate one; because "changing" can mean many things - intentionally lying is the least common occurrence, simple "neural" errors happen a lot more often.
Maybe they'll lie (probably not that common), or maybe what you said will somehow implicate you in a crime, or maybe...? That's why it's important. It's not after the fact knowing the police lied but beforehand when you don't know how things will play out that remaining silent is important.
You still communicate. You speak through your lawyer.
(from reading discussions like this one on computer-oriented websites I have come to believe that nerds are especially easy to frame by a police man who recognizes a nerds innate desire to outsmart others, and to show it off. Look at where it got Hans Reiser).
I though framing someone means making it look like they did something when they didn't. As far as I know, Hans Reiser showed the police where he buried the body; how can you say he was framed?
What I meant was - Hans Reiser had a whole story pre-fabricated that, I assume, was internally consistent, but he relied a bit too much on that abstract property of the story in his defense (not that I know details of the case, just what I read about and remember from the news reportings on the case and the trial - I'm sure there is more nuance to that story than what I'm presenting here).
They reach the intersection, where you get a good look at the men as they turn the corner. The drive halfway down the block, and turn into a driveway, pull into the garage at that house, and close the garage door, and then come out with the baby, and get into a car that was waiting in the driveway, and leave nonchalantly. You recognize the make and model of the car and are even able to read the license plate and memorize it.
You are the only witness to this part of their getaway.
The police quickly come, and ask you if you saw them men and were they went.
Are you REALLY going to say nothing? Or tell them you won't say anything without your lawyer present?
Most of the time you'll talk to the police and tell them everything you saw and that's that. It's not likely the police will target you, but that's cold comfort if you somehow end up on the wrong end of a police investigation, which is the point of the video.
You sound smart, what are possible alternatives here? Call in an anonymous tip maybe, or describe exactly what you saw, then refuse further communication without counsel present.
"Which direction did they go?!?" "Which house is on fire?!" "Does he have a gun?!" are very different questions (with different moral obligations) than "What are you doing in this neighborhood so late at night?" "Do you live around here?" "Is this your car?"
Non-urgent questions and statements should be given in the presence of an attorney, recorded, and preferably on the condition of immunity :)
Look, I'll admit I'm biased (I'm a criminal defense attorney.) That said, you never know which good, wholesome, moral conversation that you have with the police will turn you from a heroic savior into a criminal suspect.
(For what it's worth, I'd speak to the police in your scenario. That said, I wouldn't fault anyone for not doing so.)
The question is: did they cheat and get it past the software? Or were they, as suggested in this article, admitting to something they did not do?
I suspect that there are similar factors involved in other false confessions. It's an asymmetric knowledge game. The only winning move for the person being questioned is not to play, but they may not be aware of that - and worse, they may trust the other player. With further intimidation, privation, and humiliation, it's not hard to imagine why people could break down.
Then again, my coping mechanism of becoming flippant/sarcastic could flip on and I'd confess to murdering JFK, Michael Jackson and Biggie using my mind/time machine.
(In the UK there is no such thing as the right to remain silent, unless you are in a situation in which you are denied access to legal advice (rare). In all other situations your solicitor will instruct you to say 'no comment' to any question the police asks you. Funny how it differs.)
Isn't that effectively the same thing?
Here's someone who said 18 times that he didn't want to talk to the police and asserted his right to silence. Appeal denied. Convicted of murder. 2007 Supreme Court of Canada case (R. v. Singh, 2007 SCC 48, http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=interrogation+sil...).
"Whenever the discussion turned to the incident in question, however, Mr. Singh was less forthcoming. Although he provided some information regarding his presence at the pub on the night of the shooting, he repeatedly denied his involvement and asserted his right to silence. He indicated that he did not want to talk to the police, that he had nothing to say, that he knew nothing about the shooting, or that he wanted to return to his cell. Before Mr. Singh was shown the photographs in question and made the impugned admissions, he asserted his right to silence 18 times. Each time, the interviewing officer would either affirm that Mr. Singh did not have to say anything, or would explain to Mr. Singh that he had a duty or desire to place the evidence before him and he continued the interview."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/
But this reminds me of the malleability of memory and also herd-like mentality. I think it was on Tv or somewhere where the experiment involved flooding a room with participants with fake smoke but confederates were set to deny it was smoke. The effect was that the fake smoke was ignored. Had it been a real fire, they'd all have perished.
If someone is consistently upset with what you are saying and makes your life miserable you try behaving differently especially in such stressful situation.
It's useful to listen to people suspected of crimes but you should treat their "confessions" as a clues where to finds evidence of what actually happened.
The lying's not uncommon in TV dramas, but the unreliability of eyewitnesses accounts certainly is.
Never underestimate the stress caused when in a room with people aggressively questioning you. Even if they do no physical harm, This is VERY stressful.
In the US - "Am I free to go?" and "I want a lawyer" should be at the top of your 2 item list when in this situation. Remember, the Police care about solving crimes certainly - they care more about clearing cases quickly.
Here's a 2008 case (from the highest court in a major Canadian province) I found pretty quickly that's about a four and a half hour interrogation where the police lie about having DNA evidence that pins the crime on the person: http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=%22The+interview+...
Here's a 2000 Supreme Court of Canada case about an approximately eight hour interrogation (at which point the guy confessed): http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2000/2000scc38/2000scc38.... There are plenty more of these. There's no hard and fast limit to how long Canadian police can interrogate you for.
My friend, Bill, was in charge of construction projects at a real estate development. One night, he gets a phone call at 3 in the morning to let him know that one of the homes under construction is on fire. He jumps out of bed, grabs his camera and rushes out to scene of the fire. Once he gets there, he starts taking pictures in order to get a jump start on the insurance paperwork. Unfortunately, the firemen trying to put out the fire start to get suspicious. From their perspective, here's a strange guy taking pictures of burning homes at 3 in the morning (it's a development so there were no other occupied homes in the vicinity). They get to thinking maybe he is a pyromaniac who is now collecting trophy photos of his handiwork. They call the cops, Bill gets arrested and ends up in the interrogation room. Now, Bill is a pretty tough guy. Remember, he worked his way up in the construction business to become a manager so he is not a weakling by any means. However, after a couple hours of being grilled by the cops, he said he was just about ready to confess just to make it stop. They didn't beat him or anything, just the relentless application of all manner of psychological techniques (badgering, cajoling, threats of long sentences, good-bad cop, etc) completely wore him out. He was only saved when his boss found out that he had been arrested and called the station to back up his story.
From that time on, I realized that under the right circumstances, it is possible for a mentally stable, reasonable person to confess to a crime they did not commit.
More importantly, I realized that because I can't imagine something happening, does not mean it can not happen.