Posted: 8/1/2012 9:48:38 PM EDT
|
I've been slowly watching this show from the beginning. On season 8 or 9 now. Its fascinating to see the interrogation styles and techniques utilized first hand, and I watched a youtube video one time by a homicide guy that talks about what they do throughout the process. I have noticed in several episodes the detective mentioning that they "can send you to jail for life, depending on what you tell them." My thought is that regardless of what you say they are gonna try and get you with everything, regardless of if you cooperate or not. Correct?
Cooperation just seals their case for them...Anyway it just is interesting because every time this gets said the perp goes talking away. |
| Yes without a doubt. For instance when they tell someone their best bet is to tell their side of the story and by doing so will only help you. The suspect thinks telling them the truth will help them, when in fact it will not. It is just a tactic. When their is an accomplice, such as when two guys go to rob someone, and the guy they are interviewing admits it was all pre planned but the other guy killed the victim. He thinks by telling them the truth and admits everything including how the other guy did the shooting, you can always tell he thinks he is not going to be charged because he did not shoot anyone, but then he gets charged with murder as well. They kind of lead them to believe he could save himself by rolling on the other guy, but it doesn't work that way. The detectives however could not say " tell us what happened and if you didn't shoot anyone we won't charge you" and then if he does tell them the truth turn around and charge him anyway. |
| I did notice that directly. You watch the dudes roll over on a friend and give it up as soon as the detectives even head down the path of passing the buck. Then they get hit with the "well in xxx state anyone assisting in the perpetration of a crime that results in a death, will also be charged with murder." I'm always like damn ya'll you just screwed yourself. It really sucks for the dudes who are the drivers. But they are technically guilty too. |
|
Quoted:
Yes without a doubt. For instance when they tell someone their best bet is to tell their side of the story and by doing so will only help you. The suspect thinks telling them the truth will help them, when in fact it will not. It is just a tactic. When their is an accomplice, such as when two guys go to rob someone, and the guy they are interviewing admits it was all pre planned but the other guy killed the victim. He thinks by telling them the truth and admits everything including how the other guy did the shooting, you can always tell he thinks he is not going to be charged because he did not shoot anyone, but then he gets charged with murder as well. They kind of lead them to believe he could save himself by rolling on the other guy, but it doesn't work that way. The detectives however could not say " tell us what happened and if you didn't shoot anyone we won't charge you" and then if he does tell them the truth turn around and charge him anyway. Sure they can. The cops can lie to you as much as they want to get you to admit to stuff. Otherwise you are right, people always think that since they just planned to rob the guy and didn't kill him they will be OK. No dice senor, you're going down for murder too. There is a great video that gets posted here from time to time that is about 45 minutes of a defense attorney telling you not to talk to the cops, period, even if you were 3 states over when the crime was committed. I'll see if I can find it. ETA: Here it is. Great video. He says not to talk to the cops, even if you did nothing at all. FOr example, say I tell the cops I was in X city when the crime happened in Y city, which is totally true. However, a witness honestly, but mistakenly, says, yes I saw 951bulldog at the scene of the crime. The cops are gonna believe him because he has no reason to lie, and now everything else I say the cops will assume I am lying. Don't talk to cops. Ever. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes without a doubt. For instance when they tell someone their best bet is to tell their side of the story and by doing so will only help you. The suspect thinks telling them the truth will help them, when in fact it will not. It is just a tactic. When their is an accomplice, such as when two guys go to rob someone, and the guy they are interviewing admits it was all pre planned but the other guy killed the victim. He thinks by telling them the truth and admits everything including how the other guy did the shooting, you can always tell he thinks he is not going to be charged because he did not shoot anyone, but then he gets charged with murder as well. They kind of lead them to believe he could save himself by rolling on the other guy, but it doesn't work that way. The detectives however could not say " tell us what happened and if you didn't shoot anyone we won't charge you" and then if he does tell them the truth turn around and charge him anyway. Sure they can. The cops can lie to you as much as they want to get you to admit to stuff. Otherwise you are right, people always think that since they just planned to rob the guy and didn't kill him they will be OK. No dice senor, you're going down for murder too. There is a great video that gets posted here from time to time that is about 45 minutes of a defense attorney telling you not to talk to the cops, period, even if you were 3 states over when the crime was committed. I'll see if I can find it. That is the one I referenced. Once you watch that video combined with the First 48 you start to really understand how it works. Every time they do exactly what he says they will do (Both LEO and Perp). |
|
Like the gas station robberies, where the passenger said he was just going to run in and rob the place but comes out and said he killed the clerk and the driver gets charged? I agree if they can prove the driver knew they were going there to rob the place, but there have been a few times where I think the robbery was a spur of the moment and the driver per say had no idea the other guy was going to rob someone. Also, I don't feel bad for the guys who did not harm anyone but run off and dont report it and then get pissed because they got charged.
I could explain a lot more about interrogation tactics, but not on an open forum. It's an art, and it works very very well. To get someone to confess usually take a looooooonnngg time, and thankfully they edit out the actual techniques. |
|
This is my favorite show. I can watch it for hours, and sometimes do.
The best example of behavior in the interrogation room was given by the two brothers that killed a guy in Miami. One shot him with a shotgun, the other with a 7.62x39 rifle. When the first one was caught, he said that there was nothing to talk about and asked for a lawyer. When the second one got caught a couple of months later, he said exactly the same thing. And the case against both of them got dismissed after witnesses declined to testify. That was a great episode. |
|
Quoted:
This is my favorite show. I can watch it for hours, and sometimes do. The best example of behavior in the interrogation room was given by the two brothers that killed a guy in Miami. One shot him with a shotgun, the other with a 7.62x39 rifle. When the first one was caught, he said that there was nothing to talk about and asked for a lawyer. When the second one got caught a couple of months later, he said exactly the same thing. And the case against both of them got dismissed after witnesses declined to testify. That was a great episode. That sucks. |
|
You watch shows like CSI and think the cops are really good and have all these magic scientific methods...impossible to get away with a crime. Then you watch First 48 and realize the detectives got nothing unless they can get a suspect to confess.
Only a few times it seems physical evidence made a case, but seems 90+% of the time it's only because the suspect talked. They do seem to do a good job breaking them down. Every once in awhile they have a hardcore guy that just won't talk and he walks. |
|
Quoted:
Yes, fictional series, but I believe this scene was based on the non-fictional source material. Anyhow, it's a great scene and I'm reminded of it whenever this topic arises.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyfN3dUluAYI came here to post the same thing. |
|
Quoted:
Yes without a doubt. For instance when they tell someone their best bet is to tell their side of the story and by doing so will only help you. The suspect thinks telling them the truth will help them, when in fact it will not. It is just a tactic. When their is an accomplice, such as when two guys go to rob someone, and the guy they are interviewing admits it was all pre planned but the other guy killed the victim. He thinks by telling them the truth and admits everything including how the other guy did the shooting, you can always tell he thinks he is not going to be charged because he did not shoot anyone, but then he gets charged with murder as well. They kind of lead them to believe he could save himself by rolling on the other guy, but it doesn't work that way. The detectives however could not say " tell us what happened and if you didn't shoot anyone we won't charge you" and then if he does tell them the truth turn around and charge him anyway. Wrong, the detective could say or tell the suspect anything they want. The detective CAN lie and mislead a suspect to obtain information. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes without a doubt. For instance when they tell someone their best bet is to tell their side of the story and by doing so will only help you. The suspect thinks telling them the truth will help them, when in fact it will not. It is just a tactic. When their is an accomplice, such as when two guys go to rob someone, and the guy they are interviewing admits it was all pre planned but the other guy killed the victim. He thinks by telling them the truth and admits everything including how the other guy did the shooting, you can always tell he thinks he is not going to be charged because he did not shoot anyone, but then he gets charged with murder as well. They kind of lead them to believe he could save himself by rolling on the other guy, but it doesn't work that way. The detectives however could not say " tell us what happened and if you didn't shoot anyone we won't charge you" and then if he does tell them the truth turn around and charge him anyway. Wrong, the detective could say or tell the suspect anything they want. The detective CAN lie and mislead a suspect to obtain information. They maybe able to say or tell the suspect anything they want, but it can also lead to a coerced confession if taken to far. For example an officer that states "we have your fingerprints on the murder weapon" when he in fact didnt have that evidence, would be looking at strong case to have the confession suppressed. If the officer states "we're processing the murder weapon for fingerprints, what are you going to say when the lab finds your fingerprints on the weapon"? A confession obtained from confronting a suspect with false allegations of facts will quickly lead to allegations of coercion and can be used to attack the officers credibility and honesty. As others have stated the interrogation process is a skill, especially when working violent crimes. |
|
Quoted:
This is my favorite show. I can watch it for hours, and sometimes do. The best example of behavior in the interrogation room was given by the two brothers that killed a guy in Miami. One shot him with a shotgun, the other with a 7.62x39 rifle. When the first one was caught, he said that there was nothing to talk about and asked for a lawyer. When the second one got caught a couple of months later, he said exactly the same thing. And the case against both of them got dismissed after witnesses declined to testify. That was a great episode. I have noticed a couple of episodes like that. They lawyer up and the .det just don't have enough so they go free. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes without a doubt. For instance when they tell someone their best bet is to tell their side of the story and by doing so will only help you. The suspect thinks telling them the truth will help them, when in fact it will not. It is just a tactic. When their is an accomplice, such as when two guys go to rob someone, and the guy they are interviewing admits it was all pre planned but the other guy killed the victim. He thinks by telling them the truth and admits everything including how the other guy did the shooting, you can always tell he thinks he is not going to be charged because he did not shoot anyone, but then he gets charged with murder as well. They kind of lead them to believe he could save himself by rolling on the other guy, but it doesn't work that way. The detectives however could not say " tell us what happened and if you didn't shoot anyone we won't charge you" and then if he does tell them the truth turn around and charge him anyway. Wrong, the detective could say or tell the suspect anything they want. The detective CAN lie and mislead a suspect to obtain information. Couldn't that be considered duress (entire process)? Being inside an interrogation room isn't exactly a nice environment and you want to get out of there quick. |
I have several family & friends in LE. As a matter of fact, my 1st cousin is the head of IA for a large SO. She always told me, if you're ever in a situation where it's the "wrong place, wrong time" type of situation (even if you haven't done anything) - NEVER TALK to LE if "detained" or, obviously arrested for questioning. Advise them they will have to talk to your attorney. You can get yourself in a major bind if you start talking + by all means never, ever sign anything they present to you.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes without a doubt. For instance when they tell someone their best bet is to tell their side of the story and by doing so will only help you. The suspect thinks telling them the truth will help them, when in fact it will not. It is just a tactic. When their is an accomplice, such as when two guys go to rob someone, and the guy they are interviewing admits it was all pre planned but the other guy killed the victim. He thinks by telling them the truth and admits everything including how the other guy did the shooting, you can always tell he thinks he is not going to be charged because he did not shoot anyone, but then he gets charged with murder as well. They kind of lead them to believe he could save himself by rolling on the other guy, but it doesn't work that way. The detectives however could not say " tell us what happened and if you didn't shoot anyone we won't charge you" and then if he does tell them the truth turn around and charge him anyway. Wrong, the detective could say or tell the suspect anything they want. The detective CAN lie and mislead a suspect to obtain information. They maybe able to say or tell the suspect anything they want, but it can also lead to a coerced confession if taken to far. For example an officer that states "we have your fingerprints on the murder weapon" when he in fact didnt have that evidence, would be looking at strong case to have the confession suppressed. If the officer states "we're processing the murder weapon for fingerprints, what are you going to say when the lab finds your fingerprints on the weapon"? A confession obtained from confronting a suspect with false allegations of facts will quickly lead to allegations of coercion and can be used to attack the officers credibility and honesty. As others have stated the interrogation process is a skill, especially when working violent crimes. Thats my favorite show from it's beginning. I would be down fishing below the cabin but when 8:00 Thur. came I didn't care if the fish were biting or not I'd roll up and head back to the cabin. Last night three primates did a home invasion and one murdered the homeowner over her widescreen TV. One did the shooting, all three were were convicted of Capital Murder and it was explained why. Probably the most used statement on that show is "...and thats when I heard a shot. I didn't even know he had a gun." The accomplises always seem to be looking somewhere else when their homie pulls the trigger. As far as a full confession vs. lawyering up. The detectives say they would rather someone lawyer up without giving a statement on a clear cut case than a half plausible staement and then asking for lawyer. |
|
Quoted:
My thought is that regardless of what you say they are gonna try and get you with everything, regardless of if you cooperate or not. Correct? No. At least not all the time. Many investigators are willing to work with suspects for any number of reasons. In some instances, it could be that the investigator sees remorse or no intention to do harm in the suspect. In such a situation the investigator may decide that they'd like to go for a lower charge if the person cooperates. Believe it or not this happens quite often. Investigators don't have the final say in what charges a person faces, but they often are highly influential on the charges that the person will face...which has implications for bail, the costs of legal defense, potential time spent in jail, etc. It could also be that the investigator is giving the individual a very real choice: Admit to this thing I already pretty much know you did and save me some work, or piss me off sufficiently that I dedicate every waking hour of my life for the next X months to ensuring that I bring the biggest measure of pain and suffering to your life that I possibly can using every resource in the government's arsenal. The feds are quite fond of this approach. In many instances the suspect is likely to get a better outcome for themselves if they confess and plead it out than if they try to fight because in choosing the fight they usually guarantee heavier charges which result in heavier penalties, more expensive bail or no bail at all, etc. FWIW, truly innocent people usually fight. Hard. And that usually brings about the "no lube" response from the government representatives who can sometimes be so used to dealing with guilty people that they can forget there are people who don't actually deserve to get raped. So in one of life's great ironies, an innocent person can get hit harder than a career scumbag all because they have the unmitigated temerity to exercise their rights. Most criminal cases are dealt with via cooperation and plea deals. The percentage of them that are fought tooth and nail in court are pretty small in the grand scheme. If every criminal charge was contested by truly competent legal representation the courts would be paralyzed. It behooves the innocent person to acquire truly competent counsel that really will fight hard for his/her client rather than legal counsel who will phone it in or who has the same perspective problem that can color the actions of government's agents. Cooperation just seals their case for them...Anyway it just is interesting because every time this gets said the perp goes talking away. A confession is the ultimate goal of interrogation. It's hoped you get the guy to admit he shot that little old lady in the face for no reason because it's easy to get that whole proof beyond a reasonable doubt thing taken care of when he's on camera telling the jury that the old bitch deserved to be shot in the face 9 times and he'd do it again upon slightest provocation. The leverage cops and the prosecutors hold is the charges. Admit to shooting that woman in the face and we'll give you a 2nd degree murder charge, eligible for parole in 25 years. Make us work hard for it and we'll try you for 1st degree and ask for the death penalty. So cooperate and maybe one day get out, or fuck with us and we'll make sure you die in prison. Etc. You've noted that a lot of the time the evidence they are faced with is fairly thin and probably wouldn't stand against competent legal representation. Thankfully most genuinely bad people are fucking idiots and either talk themselves into more trouble than if they just shut the fuck up, and often their legal representation isn't as zealous or competent as you might expect. The fact that someone passes the bar doesn't mean they have a tiny fucking clue what they're doing anymore than the fact that someone managed to get someone to give them a badge. You've noted that perps tend to talk anyway. Guilty people frequently try to explain themselves out of trouble. Investigators know this...and they'll offer glimmers of hope to the person in the hot seat that actually establish important elements of the crime. They'll offer a sympathetic portrayal of a detail that gets the suspect to confirm that, for instance, yes...they held the weapon...or maybe that the fired it...or maybe something else. Several of those glimmers of hope and a liar trying to explain his/her way out of the problem can be added up later to pretty much hang the person with their own words. "You ADMITTED that you held the gun!" Apply pressure at the right time and the whole thing caves in. Get them desperate, then offer them a way out...like admitting to X and you'll work with them on the charges, etc. In that moment they realize they're fucked and it's the best deal they are going to get. Sold: 1 confession. This is one reason why police who are investigating you for a crime want to get you talking. Not necessarily about the case...but about anything. The more you talk, the more likely it is they'll be able to get you to say things useful to them. They want to form a connection with you and break down barriers so you reach an emotional state where you forget that the guy on the other side of the table is trying to put you in prison. This is one reason why interrogations are often not done by uniform personnel. Interrogation rooms may be decorated to look like an office...anything to give someone reason to believe they aren't in an adversarial process. Which is why the smarter ones shut the fuck up. The smarter ones, however, tend to be more sophisticated in their understanding of the system's workings because of previous experience. Previous experience tends to produce more severe violations down the line. So you get to the point where the guy being interrogated doesn't say a word but it doesn't matter because he was caught on 9 video angles shooting that convenience store clerk in the face. At that point being smart enough not to talk really doesn't help much. The First 48 is useful because it demonstrates several things: - Just how fucking cold blooded violent offenders often are - Just how fucking stupid violent offenders often are - Just how much of the criminal justice system relies on the cooperation of the criminal |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes without a doubt. For instance when they tell someone their best bet is to tell their side of the story and by doing so will only help you. The suspect thinks telling them the truth will help them, when in fact it will not. It is just a tactic. When their is an accomplice, such as when two guys go to rob someone, and the guy they are interviewing admits it was all pre planned but the other guy killed the victim. He thinks by telling them the truth and admits everything including how the other guy did the shooting, you can always tell he thinks he is not going to be charged because he did not shoot anyone, but then he gets charged with murder as well. They kind of lead them to believe he could save himself by rolling on the other guy, but it doesn't work that way. The detectives however could not say " tell us what happened and if you didn't shoot anyone we won't charge you" and then if he does tell them the truth turn around and charge him anyway. Wrong, the detective could say or tell the suspect anything they want. The detective CAN lie and mislead a suspect to obtain information. Ok cool, do me a favor get hired on a police department, become a detective, interview a violent murder suspect and tell him that if he tells you the truth you will not file any charges against him. If he confesses, charge him and take him to court. Let me know how it works out when his attorney brings up what you said to get him to confess..may or may not cost you a verdict but it's a stupid fucking tactic and there is a reason NO ONE WORTH A DAMN does it. Borderline entrapment. |
|
A killer is a person in this tight little room called "Murder"
He REALLY wants out of that room, but there's a problem: The only door out is blocked by a dead person. He can't get past that body to escape the room. The detective is a salesman. He's selling something the murderer absolutely does NOT want to buy, which is many years in prison or even death. What the detective/salesman has to do is convince the killer that there's a tiny little opening in the wall through which the killer can squeeze out of the room and escape. That opening may be "So you were in fear for your life and you defended yourself", "You were afraid he was armed and was going to kill you", "You had no idea your homey was going to do that", "You were just driving the car, you had no part in the killing", "You were trying to kill the other guy and you accidentally hit the innocent person on the corner so you're not guilty of murder", etc. All this is convincing the killer that there is that tiny opening he can get through and escape the room with the dead body blocking the door. The detective/salesman has to convince a cold-blooded killer that SOMEHOW he's not really responsible and can escape the room called Murder. Once the killer puts himself there at the scene or in any way involved, he's just convicted himself. |
|
Quoted: Oh hurray! I might get out in my late 50s... Quoted: My thought is that regardless of what you say they are gonna try and get you with everything, regardless of if you cooperate or not. Correct? No. At least not all the time. Many investigators are willing to work with suspects for any number of reasons. In some instances, it could be that the investigator sees remorse or no intention to do harm in the suspect. In such a situation the investigator may decide that they'd like to go for a lower charge if the person cooperates. Believe it or not this happens quite often. Investigators don't have the final say in what charges a person faces, but they often are highly influential on the charges that the person will face...which has implications for bail, the costs of legal defense, potential time spent in jail, etc. It could also be that the investigator is giving the individual a very real choice: Admit to this thing I already pretty much know you did and save me some work, or piss me off sufficiently that I dedicate every waking hour of my life for the next X months to ensuring that I bring the biggest measure of pain and suffering to your life that I possibly can using every resource in the government's arsenal. The feds are quite fond of this approach. In many instances the suspect is likely to get a better outcome for themselves if they confess and plead it out than if they try to fight because in choosing the fight they usually guarantee heavier charges which result in heavier penalties, more expensive bail or no bail at all, etc. FWIW, truly innocent people usually fight. Hard. And that usually brings about the "no lube" response from the government representatives who can sometimes be so used to dealing with guilty people that they can forget there are people who don't actually deserve to get raped. So in one of life's great ironies, an innocent person can get hit harder than a career scumbag all because they have the unmitigated temerity to exercise their rights. Most criminal cases are dealt with via cooperation and plea deals. The percentage of them that are fought tooth and nail in court are pretty small in the grand scheme. If every criminal charge was contested by truly competent legal representation the courts would be paralyzed. It behooves the innocent person to acquire truly competent counsel that really will fight hard for his/her client rather than legal counsel who will phone it in or who has the same perspective problem that can color the actions of government's agents. Cooperation just seals their case for them...Anyway it just is interesting because every time this gets said the perp goes talking away. A confession is the ultimate goal of interrogation. It's hoped you get the guy to admit he shot that little old lady in the face for no reason because it's easy to get that whole proof beyond a reasonable doubt thing taken care of when he's on camera telling the jury that the old bitch deserved to be shot in the face 9 times and he'd do it again upon slightest provocation. The leverage cops and the prosecutors hold is the charges. Admit to shooting that woman in the face and we'll give you a 2nd degree murder charge, eligible for parole in 25 years. Make us work hard for it and we'll try you for 1st degree and ask for the death penalty. So cooperate and maybe one day get out, or fuck with us and we'll make sure you die in prison. Etc. You've noted that a lot of the time the evidence they are faced with is fairly thin and probably wouldn't stand against competent legal representation. Thankfully most genuinely bad people are fucking idiots and either talk themselves into more trouble than if they just shut the fuck up, and often their legal representation isn't as zealous or competent as you might expect. The fact that someone passes the bar doesn't mean they have a tiny fucking clue what they're doing anymore than the fact that someone managed to get someone to give them a badge. You've noted that perps tend to talk anyway. Guilty people frequently try to explain themselves out of trouble. Investigators know this...and they'll offer glimmers of hope to the person in the hot seat that actually establish important elements of the crime. They'll offer a sympathetic portrayal of a detail that gets the suspect to confirm that, for instance, yes...they held the weapon...or maybe that the fired it...or maybe something else. Several of those glimmers of hope and a liar trying to explain his/her way out of the problem can be added up later to pretty much hang the person with their own words. "You ADMITTED that you held the gun!" Apply pressure at the right time and the whole thing caves in. Get them desperate, then offer them a way out...like admitting to X and you'll work with them on the charges, etc. In that moment they realize they're fucked and it's the best deal they are going to get. Sold: 1 confession. This is one reason why police who are investigating you for a crime want to get you talking. Not necessarily about the case...but about anything. The more you talk, the more likely it is they'll be able to get you to say things useful to them. They want to form a connection with you and break down barriers so you reach an emotional state where you forget that the guy on the other side of the table is trying to put you in prison. This is one reason why interrogations are often not done by uniform personnel. Interrogation rooms may be decorated to look like an office...anything to give someone reason to believe they aren't in an adversarial process. Which is why the smarter ones shut the fuck up. The smarter ones, however, tend to be more sophisticated in their understanding of the system's workings because of previous experience. Previous experience tends to produce more severe violations down the line. So you get to the point where the guy being interrogated doesn't say a word but it doesn't matter because he was caught on 9 video angles shooting that convenience store clerk in the face. At that point being smart enough not to talk really doesn't help much. The First 48 is useful because it demonstrates several things: - Just how fucking cold blooded violent offenders often are - Just how fucking stupid violent offenders often are - Just how much of the criminal justice system relies on the cooperation of the criminal Sorry, but fuck that noise. Lawyer up and piss 'em off. Better to take your chances than look at 25 to life as a "favor". |